Thursday, 28 February 2013



The affinity between our African 'American' family in north America and the DPRK ('north Korea') is nothing new of course. As with lots of things little known by many across the world due to the intense imperialist maligning of this great country DPRK, few know that the DPRK is along with Gaddafi's Libya one of the relatively small countries of the GlobalSouth that has given the support, disproportionate to its size, to the liberation movements across the world. Including in this internationalism is the support DPRK has given to the radical anti-colonial movements across the three continents, including many in Africa, especially places like Algeria, Zimbabwe and many others. And they have also gave support to the Black Liberation Movement in the usa, including the Black Panthers amongst others.

Brother Rodman's visit and word of warm friendship and solidarity is a beautiful moment, and one truly hopes this will inspire people to look into the last bastion of true cultural, political independence of any GlobalSouth country against imperialist hegemony: the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. The DPRK,like Vietnam and China and other struggles are ones that we owe a massive amount of debt in terms of what they have sacrificed against imperialism, for socialism and in support of our struggles across the world.

And, has to be said, a nice follow up to the successful nuclear test by the DPRK, which ensures along with the mass support for the leadership and support from the GlobalSouth, especially China, the independence and longevity of this system and country.

Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Rodman said after the game that "although relations between the two countries are regrettable, personally I am a friend of Marshal Kim Jong Un and the DPRK people."

PYONGYANG, Feb. 28 (Xinhua) -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)'s top leader Kim Jong Un and former NBA star Dennis Rodman sat together and watched a basketball game between U.S. and DPRK players Thursday, witnesses said.

The competition ended in a 110-110 draw, with 12 DPRK players and four players from the U.S. team Harlem Globetrotters divided into two teams.

Rodman said after the game that "although relations between the two countries are regrettable, personally I am a friend of Marshal Kim Jong Un and the DPRK people."

He thanked the DPRK for inviting the U.S. players and himself for the visit, noting the game reflected the friendship between the two peoples.

During the match, Rodman, who wore dark glasses and a hat, sat to the left of Kim Jong Un. Without any translators, the two talked directly to each other and laughed, witnesses said.

DPRK cheerleaders wearing traditional clothes and miniskirts performed during the intermission of the game. After the game, a DPRK university presented a banner to the Harlem Globetrotters.

College students and Pyongyang citizens, as well as foreign diplomats and representatives from international organizations were invited to watch the game.

Foreign journalists were not invited to cover the U.S. delegation's trip, but local media have given timely coverage of the visit that started on Tuesday.

Rodman will depart earlier than other delegation members, who are scheduled to visit Panmunjom on the border with South Korea before leaving on March 5th.

The Harlem team said the DPRK was their 122nd visiting stop, after the invitation from the DPRK Sports Ministry came to them one month ago.


This latest development is clearly reminiscent and seems to be inspired by the Barefoot Doctor movement of yesteyear, a revolutionary socialist initiative of the Chinese Communist Party to bring health care to the masses of people in the rural areas. The Barefoot Doctor movement was one of the most important health-based initiatives world wide for bringing a better health system to the masses of rural peasants in 'developing' countries such as China and others throughout Asia and the GlobalSouth continents. - Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm


BEIJING—China is encouraging doctors to come out of retirement and work in rural areas as part of an effort to tackle a health-care disparity between wealthy cities and the much poorer countryside.

The move is among initiatives outlined by China's health minister to revamp a health-care system that reinforces the social inequalities now threatening the country's economic growth and stability. China offers progressive medical facilities in large cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, for those who can afford it, but still struggles to provide basic care to large portions of the rural population.

Many medical professionals prefer living in cities, fueling the disparity. On Tuesday, Health Minister Chen Zhu said the ministry is boosting incentives, such as free education, to entice physicians to work in less-developed regions.

The ministry is also rolling out a new examination system that will lower the standards required for doctors who aim to work in villages, Dr. Chen said at a briefing with representatives of the World Health Organization on China's health-care reform. Retired doctors from large public hospitals will be invited to return to work in primary-care facilities around the nation, he said. He didn't outline specific details for the new examination system or the programs for retired physicians.

Doctors working in public hospitals follow the national retirement regulations, with men retiring at 60 and women at 55. Private hospitals can employ doctors beyond those age limits.

Health officials will also increase efforts to create more county hospitals and primary health facilities in the countryside to take the strain off large urban hospitals, Dr. Chen said. "This is a critical year" for health reform, he said, adding that there is now more expectation among the general public for better health care.

The world's most populous country is in the midst of one of the largest health-care overhauls the world has ever seen. China has spent $125 billion in recent years to extend public health-insurance coverage to 95% of the population.

The yawning gap between the country's rich and the poor, most obviously between its city and rural dwellers, is an issue facing China's new government that takes power in March at a meeting of the National People's Congress.

The median household income of city residents was 28,000 yuan, or roughly $4,500, in 2010, nearly triple that of rural counterparts, according to China's Southwestern University of Finance and Economics.

The rift threatens to unhinge the country's growth and ignite social unrest. And it is widely playing out in the country's health system.

Health officials announced years ago plans to expand hospital networks across China, but village and rural dwellers often are still traveling thousands of miles across the country to city hospitals when treatment back home either isn't available or isn't up to par with city standards.

The result has been overcrowded city hospitals, where the sick spend days, even weeks, waiting for appointments in overflowing waiting rooms.

China's central and western regions remain the country's largest weak spots, said Wang Jin, a partner in consultant firm McKinsey's health-care group in China. "There has been recent investment in those areas and other rural areas, but historically there has been such a deep gap there that the government is still catching up," Ms. Wang said.

While much of the emphasis has been on improving the quantity of hospitals and doctors in rural areas, future leaders will be tasked with a need to improve the quality of care, Ms. Wang said, noting that many rural doctors' skill sets limit their ability to operate on patients and treat certain diseases.

Health officials are also aiming to improve the reimbursement rate for rural families dealing with critical and catastrophic illnesses, Dr. Chen said, adding that the country's national insurance has reimbursement rates of around 70% for rural citizens, but the other 30% is often a huge burden.

Dr. Chen also said that it is expanding sales within counties of pharmaceuticals on China's essential drug list, a list of Western and traditional drugs that cover diseases such as cancer and that are subsidized by provincial governments.


(Sons of Malcolm does not endorse the 'Fanon Foundation'.)

Saturday, 23 February 2013


Great letter. The only thing I would say is that I think it is a shame that our dear brother-leader Fidel Castro could not say something about internationalism beyond the Americas - Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm


Letter from Fidel Castro to Hugo Chavez upon Chavez’s Departure from Cuba


Dear Hugo,

I am extremely satisfied that you have been able to return to that piece of American land which you love so much, and to our brother people who support you so much.

A long and agonising wait, as well as your astonishing capacity for physical resistance and the total dedication of a team of doctors, as has been the case over the last 10 years, were necessary to achieve this objective.

It would be totally unfair not to mention the insurmountable dedication of your closest family members, your colleagues in the revolutionary leadership, the Bolivarian Armed Forces, who were re-armed and re-equipped by you, and the honest people of the world who have shown their support.

The breath the Venezuelan people offered you also deserves a special mention, who saluted you with their daily demonstrations of enthusiastic and unshakeable support. It is to this which your happy return to Venezuela is owed.

You learned a lot about life, Hugo, in those difficult days of suffering and sacrifice. Now that we will not have the privilege of receiving news of you on a daily basis, we will go back to the method of correspondence which we have used for many years.

We will always live to fight for justice for human beings, consciously and humbly, without fear of the years, months, days or hours that we might have left to live in the most critical era of the history of our humanity.

Our people, who are also your people, will know tomorrow of your return to Venezuelan via this message. Everything had to be done with much discretion, so as not to give an opportunity to the fascist groups to plan any of their cynical actions against the Bolivarian revolutionary process.

When the socialist camp collapsed and the USSR disintegrated, and imperialism with its sharpened knife tried to drown the Cuban Revolution in blood, Venezuela, a relatively small country in divided America, was capable of preventing that. Due to time restraints, I have not mentioned the numerous countries in the Antilles, Central and South America that Venezuela has helped, on top of its great economic and social programmes. That is why all honest people of the world have followed closely the “health and news of Chavez”.

Until victory always!

A firm hug!

Fidel Castro Ruz
8.35 p.m.
February 17 2013


Be it China or the Global South: Unity and Assertiveness is the only Survival Strategy in relation to imperialism

Sukant Chandan, 
Sons of Malcolm
23 feb 2013

"China has more leverage than Britain has in their bilateral relations. China cultivating more contacts with separatists in Northern Ireland and Scotland would make London quite uncomfortable. China's GDP is close to that of Germany's, France's and Britain's combined. If Britain and China start competing over who can be tougher against the other, can Britain be the winner? " (Chinese state media - Global Times)

I have been advocating for many years now that the Global South is in the strongest position it has ever been in historically vis-a-vis imperialism, and that a little bit of unity of purpose between the GlobalSouth powers, especially China and Russia, with the addition of India and some African and 'latin' American countries would tip the historical curren in favour of a foreseeable end to imperialist domination of the planet on all levels. I have been arguing for many years that the only viable survival approach of the GlobalSouth, in terms of stopping the destruction of our peoples, nature, nations and regions, is coming together to push imperialism back.

Some might dismiss this analysis as unrealistic and also this has been attacked as unrealistic, it is attacked as a political position of the world revolution personified by people like Malcolm X and Che Guevara that we  left back in the 1960s and 1970s. However Chinese state media has just published an article that is basically promoting exactly this position that in an open confrontation with imperialism, that China has a lot of potential to win the battle or even greater war of defence and liberation against imperialist aggression that it has been facing non stop for centuries and especially since China became independent and socialist in 1949.

It is important to note that the China has decided to state this directly in english language media, which is a clear indication that they want the english-speaking imperialists to know that, an in quoting the title of the article, "Showing toughness a pointless game" with the Chinese.

Although the Chinese masses and large sections of the Chinese ruling Communist Party, Peoples Liberation Army, and academic circles are militantly anti-imperialist socialists, the Chinese approach since the end of the leadership era of Mao Tse Tung has been to play their strategy without bluster and shouting, so once again, such an opinion piece in the Chinese state Global Times on-line magazine, is another indicator of the growing confidence and power of the more assertive sections in Chinese society. At the same time analysing the full article, the Chinese are giving a warning rather threatening, in stating to the brits: calm down you silly little white fools who are anyway about to fall off the precipice of history.

Although we could see further reversals for the Global South and relative failures of the Chinese and Russians as in the case of the nato attack on Libya (and also from the Arab sting/spring operation of imperialism), one does feel that our side has learnt some hard lessons from that sorry episode, and we are getting our momentum back in the face of continued offensives from imperialism. As long as imperialism exists, imperialism cannot but relate to us as a continued and escalating offensive, but our side is preparing all the time, and the present Syrian situation shows (although of course things are not 100% sure in the Syrian case) that if our side can be united while playing slightly different roles, our allied peoples and nations do not have to be victims to imperialist onslaughts.



nato and their death squad allies ('rebels') lies: 4,000 killed is a bit different to "50,000"

One fundamental rule that people often forget is that imperialism and its allies lie all the time, and they promote big lies in big ways all the time.

So now years after the destruction they have wrought on the best country in Africa in terms of social indicators on many levels - Libya - the imperialists and their proxies are starting to admit the nonsense that they were always peddling.

From the lies of 50,000 killed in the nato death squad putsch against the Libyan Jamahirya, they now admit in public that a fraction of that number were killed - 4,700 - with just over 2,000 still missing. Five or six thousand is a big difference from 50,000.

As for those who were killed by nato and their death squad proxies on the ground: no figures whatsoever. In actual fact well over 50,000 Libyan people only in the armed forces were killed by nato, and many more by their death squads and other civilians killed by nato bombing.

Of course the author of the article below from the british white power structure media  - ian white - was a rabid foam-at-the-mouth liberal champion of the nato destruction and mass murder in Libya at the time. Like a typical euro white man, he has no shame or self reflection about the lies he spewed out, lies which so many non-white people infected by a profound sense of inferiority complex in relation to the white man and its miltiary machine - nato - also spewed out and cannot bring themselves to admit that they were utter fools and tools of the imperialists.

Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm


Libya's new government has drastically reduced its estimate of the number of people who were killed in the revolution against Muammar Gaddafi's regime, concluding that 4,700 rebel supporters died and 2,100 are missing, with unconfirmed similar casualty figures on the opposing side.


Initially rebel officials believed that some 50,000 people had been killed, a figure that was revised down to 25,000 dead and 4,000 missing in October 2011. The latest statistics have been compiled after research by the ministry, though they do not include the final figure for fatalities on the Gaddafi side.


"Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" 
Martin Luther King, 
April 30, 1967, Riverside Church, New York

"Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."

The sermon which I am preaching this morning in a sense is not the usual kind of sermon, but it is a sermon and an important subject, nevertheless, because the issue that I will be discussing today is one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I'm using as a subject from which to preach, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam."

Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.

Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.

Yes, we must stand, and we must speak. [tape skip]...have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam. Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. And so this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.

This sermon is not addressed to Hanoi, or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Nor is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in a successful resolution of the problem. This morning, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility, and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is...a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons, and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school room. So we watch them in brutal solidarity, burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years--especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last few years. They applauded our total movement; they've applauded me. America and most of its newspapers applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said, we can't do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement--we non-violently decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull Connor;when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark. There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was not just something taking place, but it was a commission--a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists, for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative. Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them? What, then, can I say to the Vietcong, or to Castro, or to Mao, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life? Finally, I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come today to speak for them. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.

Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers. We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around!" It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and thereby speed up the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I'm not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: "Let us love one another, for God is love. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us."

Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.

It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."

Now it isn't easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated. When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job...means being abused and scorned. It may mean having a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, "Why do you have to go to jail so much?" And I've long since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must bear. Let us bear it--bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace. Let us go out this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I'm not in despair, because I know that there is a moral order. I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I can still sing "We Shall Overcome" because Carlyle was right: "No lie can live forever." We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: "Truth pressed to earth will rise again." We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: "Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome because the bible is right: "You shall reap what you sow." With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" With this faith, we'll sing it as we're getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore. And I don't know about you, I ain't gonna study war no more.

Tuesday, 19 February 2013


India plays the brits very nicely 
Observations on the current british imperialist delegation to India

Sukant Chandan,
Sons of Malcolm
19 feb 2013

Some interesting notes from the british white power structures 'economist' magazine. It clearly points to the fundamentally changing relationship of India as a former colony of the brits, now increasingly and despite all the internal and violent contradictions of India is turning the tables on the relationship in as much that it is increasingly in the driving seat of the relationship with the former colonial 'masters'. This is in line with the general world trend which is now seeing vast areas of the GlobalSouth, if not the majority areas, seeing continuous annual economic growth, and massive poverty reduction (India of course is seriously lagging behind China and 'Latin' America in this regard) while the 'west' are suffering all kids of economic crises and the growing social malaise that goes hand in hand.

"... Yet India’s affinity with Britain is not deep. Indian tycoons have houses in London, but send their children to study in America. Nor is it evident among most politicians, as Mr Cameron discovered. Neither Sonia Gandhi, the power behind India’s coalition government, nor her son and probable heir, Rahul, was available to meet him in Delhi. Their steward, India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh, was available, but unforthcoming. Mr Cameron is still no closer to realising his dream of a new special relationship—India does not, in fact, go in for such arrangements. Nor, despite the naive hopes expressed by some in the prime minister’s party, will it offer special breaks for British business.

"There have been setbacks, too. Mr Cameron’s efforts to curb immigration to Britain has led to a slump in applications for student visas from India and offended its government. The Tory party’s rowdy Euroscepticism has also done damage. Shyam Saran, formerly India’s top diplomat, notes that many Indian businesses are chiefly interested in Britain as a potential conduit to Europe. Like Britons, they are no longer sure whether it will stay in the EU. “There is a lot of confusion in India,” he says. “Should we look at the British-Indian relationship as a bilateral?”

"Britain had better hope not: it needs all the diplomatic ballast it can get in its dealings with India. The former jewel in its imperial crown considers, probably rightly, that Britain needs India a lot more than it needs Britain. To his credit, Mr Cameron is the first British prime minister to have registered that important truth." (source)

As I have mentioned for many years, especially since the GlobalSouth was caught sleeping on the nato war on Libya, the GlobalSouth is in a very strong position in relation to white imperialism. Yes, it is true we are still at least two decades from any one country of the GlobalSouth being able to match the imperialists with conventional weapons, but the way in which the imperialists are grovelling to India and China and the other stronger GlobalSouth 'emerging' (of course they have not emerged, unless we admit they 'emerged' onto the world many centuries and millennia before europe did!) countries of ours.

The GlobalSouth leadership despite stupidities here and there, are actually quite wiley and wise and to the inter-generational struggle they are ALL engaged in, in relation to imperialism, the Indian ruling class, apart from utter compradors and the crazy nutters who would love imperialism but pretend to be 'nationalistic' of the 'Hindu' right and far right, are well aware that imperialism will never really be happy until either India and South Asia and Asia is destroyed, or until Asian countries become lackeys as they were under formal colonialism. The latter eventuality is unlikely to happen, despite imperialism's on going attempts to pit Asians against Asians as especially the case with India and Pakistan and India versus China, so the imperialists are building up to smashing ALL opposition everywhere in the world: better to divide and destroy a la Libya, Iraq, Mali, Mexico etc, than allow these pesky Black and Brown upstarts who are can longer be bought out to actually build up their nations in the face of imperialist resistance.

And if cameron's begging to us Asians/GlobalSouth peoples in India was not enough to be amused about, Indian prime minister made sure he gave the brits a good public talking at the joint pres conference with cameron to on the question of corruption, the brits finance capital newspaper of choice - the financial times - called it "awkward" and "spiky":

"At a press conference after his meeting with Mr Cameron, Mr Singh said he had "conveyed to the prime minister our very serious concerns regarding allegations about unethical means used in securing the 2010 contract for AgustaWestland helicopters.

""I told him that we have sought an explanation from the company by 22 February to examine if the contractual conditions on unethical practices and the integrity pact have been violated."" (source)

I have written on Sons of Malcolm many a time charting the growing tensions between India and the brits, such as here, the white imperialists love to lecture our nations on the corruption that undoubtedly does exist in our nations, like it does everywhere else, but it is great to see India giving a taste of that medicine back to the devilish brits. India suffers from corruption from the very large scale to the very small, but as Louis Farrakhan explained in a way no one else has on the issue, the white imperialists are actually the biggest fraudsters and liars in all of history in scale, underhandedness and the level of their corruption leaves ours looking like peanuts. Although this is not to say that India must not fight against corruption in a pro-people and anti-imperialist framework, it should, and it should look to China as to the comparatively lesser manifestation of corruption and the straight and no nonsense approach that the Chinese have to corruption in middle and senior levels of the ruling party and government.

India has raised the issue of british corruption in relation to an arms deal, and on the side of the brits, they are desperate that us Indians change our switch to a major french deal to replace the british one:

"The Indian government has threatened to cancel the AgustaWestland contract, worth $560m, and is preparing to return three of the aircraft already supplied." (source)

India of course knows just how much of a precarious situation the brits are militarily and economically, so the Indian government has used this situation to criticise cameron on his white supremacist rhetoric on immigration, with cameron very quickly assuring that more visas will be given to Indian students in the past weeks, while also going on about how britain cannot be a "soft touch on immigration", such white supremacist rhetoric is of course totally echoed by the imperialist labour party too. cameron's flip flopping on immigration this last week has raised some eye brows amongst the british white power structure, indicative again of the desperado nature of the brits in trying to get China and India to bail them out of their capitalist-imperialist crisis, when they are not joining in with the french and yanks and their historical protectorates in the gulf to destroy the MENA region, especially Syria, Libya, Mali, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria now on the cards.

All in all I think it has been interesting to observe how the India government have played cameron and the brits during the India visit. They have shown minimal slavishness in relation to the brits, actually they have taken advantage of the growing intensity of inter-imperialist rivalry between the french and the brits on the level of the arms industry, which is the single most important industry for white imperialism, to gain strategic advantages and diplomatic pressure in the interests of India. Of course the brits will be gently twisting the Indian's arms on the issue of ceasing defying imperialist sanctions on Iran, and also trying to get India to play imperialist ball on Sri Lanka to try and ensure Sri Lanka's policy of growing strategic alliance with China ceases. Despite the contradictions, India seems to be building up its own self-esteem and self-confidence. The two fundamental things that Indians, South Asians and Asian in general and the GlobalSouth needs is for India and China to enter into a win-win strategic partnership, and for India internally (while keeping all imperialist meddling totally out of our affairs) to turn towards a policy of poverty reduction and wealth redistribution.


Babylon 1981 gets most of the limelight in terms of ground-breaking radical Black cinema in england, and for good reason, it is an outstanding film about the Black working class experience in england at a time when Black and Brown and some white allies were literally burning up the country in resistance against white supremacist working class and police brutality and poor conditions in our communities. However, Pressure while being much less known, was screened six years prior to Babylon, and perhaps being a bit closer to the Black Power period of the last 1960s and early 1970s, has more of that influence in it, while also being a great local community story about Black youth in and around and being shot the Ladbroke Grove area. There are some fantastic shots of Trellick Tower from the canal.

Pressure is also more experimental than Babylon, making it more interesting viewing from this perspective, with the slightly funky and zany Black Power sister who passes on some interesting and rather humorous lectures the brothers in the area. 

I personally have not seen Pressure for nearly four years at least, so am looking myself to watching it again. 

Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Sunday, 17 February 2013


Interesting that this gets through to an english-language opinion piece in Global Times. China has no reason to share these internal thoughts with the english-speaking world, which indicates that these views are widespread in China at all levels of community and governance and the Communist Party, and that they are confident about these issues to let the world know, especially the imperialist world.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Doubts over income distribution reform must be dispelled


China should narrow the income distribution gap to promote a fair society. Reforms to income distribution system represent an arduous undertaking. There are many differences in people's understanding of what this entails. It is very important for us to overcome these differences and reach a consensus.

We should firmly understand the urgency of narrowing the income gap and establishing social justice. The development of society should not hinder attempts to narrow the income gap. The principle of distribution according to work should be defended, but monopolies should be broken and excessively high incomes need to be adjusted.


Many people's discontent is not only aimed at the income distribution system, but also targets high housing prices and other problems. These require long-term efforts to solve. China cannot be an idealistically "fair country." The variability of the market economy means development cannot be perfectly evenly spread. However, all of these factors need to be judged against the background that China is a socialist country and common prosperity is the fundamental social ideal in China. China should have the capability to suppress unfairness.


This is from the jamestown foundation, which is one of the main imperialist think-tanks based in the usa.

The writer of the piece is very bitter, cycnical and upset about the strategic alliance between Putin's Russia and Venezuela. The main thing to take away from the article, apart from it outlining some of the details and degrees to which there is a strategic alliance, is that God forbid Chavez is no longer the leader of Venezuela, that Vice President Maduro and other leading sections in Venezuela are already working with our Russian family to strengthen what already strong ties there are.

Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Russia Aims to Extend Alliance with Venezuela


Hugo Chavez’s reported life-threatening illness has repercussions beyond Venezuela and even Latin America. The prospect of a potential change in Venezuela’s leadership has led Russia to seek to ensure its strong position in Venezuela and its availability as a base for Russian activity throughout Latin America once Chavez is no longer in charge there. At the same time Chavez’s disciple and designated successor, Vice President Nicolas Maduro, clearly grasps the importance of establishing his credentials in foreign affairs by preserving the Russian account in Venezuela and also understands the importance of gaining Moscow’s support should Chavez pass from the scene.
This convergence of interest may explain why Rosneft executive chairman Igor Sechin flew to Caracas in late January to sign a series of new accords with Venezuela. Sechin clearly has been the Kremlin’s “point man” on Latin America for several years and has publicly advocated the creation of an alliance between Russia and like-minded Latin American states like Venezuela against the United States. It appears, he has also been the overseer of the intelligence and gun running agreements between Moscow and Caracas to support insurgents across Latin America. At the same time he is a key assistant to Putin and the head of Rosneft, Russia’s largest oil company, so he influences many aspects of Moscow’s foreign policy (see EDM, May 12–13, 2010; Voice of Russia, January 29;
In general Russia seeks to encourage what it believes to be the emergence of a new generation of Latin American leaders who oppose US unilateralism and can be persuaded by Moscow to join it in a campaign for multipolarity—i.e. an anti-American foreign policy, including opposing the so-called “Washington consensus,” which espouses democracy and strong market economies. Russia also hopes to foster economic and military ties (through arms sales) to Latin American countries in order to alter the regional balance of power against US interests and strengthen Brazil, its partner in the BRICS organization, as well as Venezuela (, January 25). Venezuela, as the primary inspiration behind revolutionary and insurgent movements—as well as more prosaically a major source of weapons to these insurgents—is equally critical to Russian designs. Meanwhile, the chance for Russia to insinuate itself further into Venezuela’s energy sector is similarly alluring given Sechin’s diverse assignments in the government and bureaucracy. Therefore, Sechin signed agreements that Rosneft will invest $10 billion in Venezuelan energy projects in the next few years. He claimed that overall oil production in projects of Russo-Venezuelan cooperation could reach 50 million tons annually, and Rosneft’s share would be 15 million tons or 500,000 barrels per day (Interfax, January 30).
Rafael Ramirez, head of PDVSA, Venezuela’s national oil company, observed that mutual investments in projects between PDVSA and Russian companies was around $46 billion, with direct investment by Russian companies amounting to $17 billion (Interfax, January 30). As part of these deals, with the support of PDVSA, Rosneft and Sechin will acquire the shares formerly held by TNK-BP, a long-time objective of Rosneft and Russia in Venezuela. Thus, Rosneft will now gain access to the Venezuelan Petromonagas firm, which produces 47.25 million barrels of synthetic oil annually, agreements on implementing the Carabobo-2 project, and the joint company Pedro Victoria. Similarly, Russian oil and gas company Surgutneftegas has asked the Venezuelan energy ministry’s permission to transfer to Rosneft its 20-percent stake in the Russian National Oil Consortium, which is developing the Junin-6 Block in Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt. Other sources claimed that Russia will invest $46.9 billion to help Venezuela extract up to 930,000 barrels of oil a day there (AVN-Venezuela, January 31). These deals give Rosneft 40 percent of that consortium. Undoubtedly, the oil giant will soon go after the other three Russian companies operating there—Lukoil, TNK-BP (which it is now taking over, giving it 60 percent of this operation), and GazpromNeft—so for Sechin this trip is not just about pursuing Russian national interest, but also about ensconcing Rosneft as the main, if not exclusive, Russian energy player in Venezuela (Interfax, January 30; AVN-Venezuela, January 29). Sechin also expressed interest in other joint projects with PDVSA offshore. And he also indicated that Gazprom planned to operate at Venezuela’s offshore Mariscal Sucre gas field, with proven reserves of 14.7 trillion feet (420 billion cubic meters—bcm) producing 12.5 bcm annually.
Sechin blithely announced that Russia will continue to work in Venezuela over the long term and its work will not be influenced by external circumstances. Furthermore, not only were energy deals made, but drilling and construction joint service companies are being created with firms like the machine-building corporation Uralmashzavod coming to Venezuela (Rossiya 1 TV, January 30). Thus, by 2021, Venezuela expects Russia to be its main oil partner (Madrid EFE, January 30).
Vice President Maduro, for his part, claimed that these Russian deals and the cooperation with Russia will turn Venezuela into a “power” that can construct a regional bloc in the Caribbean and Latin America (AVN-Venezuela, January 30). However, the truth is rather more prosaic. Venezuela has become not a power but a subsidiary of the Russian government—and, in particular, of Rosneft. Meanwhile Russia has further entrenched itself in Venezuela’s energy sector and politics. In Sechin’s deals, one sees a textbook example of the phenomenon noted by many experts that, in many cases, Russian foreign policy amounts to the mere pursuit of individual, sectoral or factional interests under the auspices of the state. It therefore remains to be seen just how durable these investments will turn out to be.


Western Art is Barking at China


In Europe and the US, for years and decades, art has become sclerotic, toothless, and somehow synonymous with grant applications, ego trips, identical-looking museum buildings, hordes of tourists and the constant glorification of form over substance.

Like Gucci and Prada, Impressionists and the “3 Tenors”, for instance, have been elevated to status symbols, or to something one is expected to see, and listen to periodically, in order to show some basic signs of sophistication.

The Western propaganda apparatus spent great energy and tremendous funds on extracting all the teeth from the artists, eventually turning them into well groomed poodles. Sex, gore, booze, drugs and nihilism: yes, yes! Politics, revolution and attempts to overthrow the Western imperialist regime: no, no!

We used to believe that at least those guys and gals sitting in Paris, were somehow different. Then on a May 27th, 2008 interview with Charlie Rose, Matthiessen stated that he “invented The Paris Review as cover” for his CIA activities.

By then, of course, nobody with a working brain believed that European and other Western cultural institutions in Asia, Africa and elsewhere, were just ‘promoting artistic activities’. But who would ‘bite the hand that feeds you’.

At that point, all creativity was gone. In the West, collectors, capitalist propagandists, the entertainment business and those who just needed to have their dwellings and businesses ‘decorated’, already controlled the majority of ‘art’.

In China, ‘things’ are different. And the more different they are, more cash and energy is spent by Western governments, propagandists and cultural institutions, in order to make it exactly the same – toothless and sclerotic – as its counterparts in the West.

Chinese art is combative and fully engaged politically, and socially. For years and decades it has been on the vanguard, relentlessly pushing boundaries, asking uncomfortable questions, loudly accusing and demanding.

It also evolves: as it is increasingly involved in one tremendous project – helping to build and to improve the country with the largest population on earth.

Much of Chinese art, at least the best of it, is still undeniably socialist.

But Western propaganda is continuously barking at China.

“Censorship!” it screams. “Freedom of speech!”

Anyone who attacks socialism or the leading role of the Communist Party is immediately elevated to the status of a cultural icon, a divine being, by Western critics and media. It does not really matter how well the artist paints, singer sings or filmmaker directs – becoming a dissident, an anti-Communist; it gains immediate access to fame, limitless grants and funding.

Like those few artists in Caracas, Maracaibo and Havana who are willing to sell their souls and the revolution for hard cash, several Chinese artists have also joined the pre-orchestrated choir of supporters of Western cultural imperialism, after calculating and coming to the delicate conclusion, that the soft leather seats of luxury sedans under their backsides compensate for a lack of conscience, even for treason.

Some dissident ‘heroes’ are subtle, but most of them, so beloved by Western galleries, are actually increasingly vulgar: delivering endless flow of paintings depicting Chinese comrade ladies in military and police uniforms and Mao pants, in near pornographic poses, with huge erect nipples and hairy crotches between widely-spread legs. Such images do not require a great imagination or exceptional talent, and Otto Dix and others better executed them in the West, many decades ago. But they sell very well in New York, Paris and Sydney. And they are considered, ‘oh my god, so risqué!’

Would it not be so gross, barking at China’s art scene could actually be seen as very comical, as at closer examination, Western art is actually much more rigidly regulated than art in China, the same as the so called “Western Democracy”.

It is already living in some post-censorship (not just in post-modernist) era, resting lazily on slightly stinky compost covering green pastures over the hill. It doesn’t even need to be threatened by censors; it is amazingly auto-repressive, remarkably disciplined; it regulates itself with great sensibility, intuition and precision.

Much of Western art is positioned deeply and firmly inside far from the odorless rectums of the sponsors and owners of the galleries, of funding agencies and political and ‘cultural’ institutions.

Its colorful tubes and triangles, stains and phantasmagoric curves are all self-serving. An old woman who can’t afford to pay electric bills, a man who has his house repossessed because he can’t pay the mortgage after falling ill, children killed by US drones in far away countries: all these realities are almost never represented by the complex lines and curves, stripes and explosions of colors.

The milieu of Western art is egoistic; self-serving, as it was paid, for decades, to be.

Go to London galleries, go to Chelsea in New York, and you will see: much of the contemporary art is about failed erections, about the fear of ageing and lonely death, or about outbursts of selfishness: self esteem, self-admiration and ‘self-discovery’. Most of it is all ‘me-me-me’, plus, as mentioned above, about those experimentations with a quantity of extremely abstract forms, with no meaning or use.


Then visit the “798 Art District” in Beijing or “50 Moganshan Art District” in Shanghai. There, so much appears to be in direct contrast to what takes place in the galleries in the West.

The Chinese artwork is engaged, full of humanism, compassion and wrath against injustice. Many artists exhibiting there are clearly searching for solutions and ways forward. Not for themselves – for their country!

In January 2013 I visited dozens of art galleries in Shanghai, with my friend Yuan Sheng, a leading Chinese concert pianist from Beijing. We planned to call on “50 Moganshan” for only two hours, but in the end decided to stay there for almost the entire day, climbing the stairs to the attics, discussing the artwork, engaging in conversations with the local curators and artists.

While “798 Art District” in Beijing (also known as “Dashanzi Art District”), is based among enormous 50-year old decommissioned military factory buildings, in Shanghai, the artists are working and exhibiting in the former industrial area along the Suzhou Creek.

In both cities, hundreds of galleries and art studios now mix with avant-garde theatres, unique cafes and eateries, and with outdoor sculptures. The former industrial landscape offers a neutral and unsentimental backdrop.

Both places are dramatic and full of creative energy. And they are not the only art ‘temples’ of these great cities; just important ‘additions’ to the countless concert halls, opera houses, museums, music districts and cultural centers.

The government provides space, but the galleries are run independently, with very little interference.

And just as in Venezuela and Cuba, the Chinese state puts great emphasis on arts.

“I think the arts are now getting tremendous, unprecedented attention from the government and from the common people alike”, explained Yuan Sheng, a concert pianist, a graduate of the Manhattan School of Music and a professor of piano at the Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing. “During the 6th National Meeting of the 17th National Congress, the government passed a resolution, which emphasizes greatly the importance of cultural development, decisively increasing financial and other support for the arts and cultural development of the country.”

Galleries in Beijing may be the most radical, but even those in Shanghai are clearly engaged, and in combative mode.

Oil paintings of Wei Yi at 523 Art Zone Gallery are exposing the problem of rural laborers. The Art Zone’s powerful exhibition “We Are All Bachelors” shows ‘men without women’ aged 40-70, in the poor mountainous Miao towns.

“We have already dedicated many years of our lives, exposing the social problems our country is facing”, explained an employee of the gallery, while packing for me several free catalogues and DVD’s of related documentaries. “If people are not interested, we have to make them change, so they get involved. We are working with some very famous artists like Lin Xiaodong, who is exposing the plight of farmers and immigrants from the countryside. He, of course, also exhibits his work in several major museums and at the 798 Art District in Beijing”.

At ShangART Gallery, a naked man is crawling on a horizontally placed ladder, going nowhere.

There are impressive photos from Tibet and Nepal by Xiao Lin and there is the scarred urban landscape, destroyed hutons and kitschy modern developments and abandoned mosques at OFOTO Gallery.

Then we visit yet another enormous exhibition from rural China, this one at the Suzhouhe Art Center. “Our artwork is part of the huge social investigation conducted at Western Hunan Province”, explains an employee of this multi-story gallery. “Hunan still has so many poor people. What you see here is the result of our two-year work; work which we plan to continue for at least ten more years.” On display are brilliantly executed full-size portraits depicting both men, and women from the countryside. One wall is fully dedicated to “The Village Committee”. Each portrait has an explanation. Yuan is translating for me: ‘Head of Party in the Village, Yu Huang Gang: 5 acres of land, 7 people in the family, 2 cows, 7 ducks, 3 sons who are still single, 70 years old.”

Across the road is the Aike-Dellarco Gallery. There, one powerful work of art has two images imbedded in one painting; the images change depending from which side one looks. What is permanent is the huge fire in the distance, but seen from the right, one faces Palestine or maybe Egypt, with people running away from the flames and smoke. Moving to the left, the fire remains, but now we are in the middle of some pedestrian street in Shanghai, where people are actually moving slowly towards the blaze.

And nearby, there is yet another gallery, with an enormous eerie painting of a monstrous and appalling-looking aircraft carrier, seen through the absolute environmental destruction on the slopes of the mountains.

The variety and force of the local paintings is remarkable; their creativity is breathtaking.

Here, almost everything has meaning, the stories are real and urgent, almost all of them global.

Before leaving the district, we enter the Pata Gallery that is exhibiting work of Zheng Hong Xiang. On one of them, there is an executioner’s noose hanging from the ceiling, and a half-naked man with his head covered by a red box. There are fragments from the US Declaration of Independence printed on the surface of the box, in white letters.

Yuan and I approach Ms Ivy, a young art student who works in the gallery. What does she imagine when she see these paintings?

“This is called ‘Misunderstanding’”, she explains, without any hesitation. “A man is soon going to commit suicide. It is like what the Declaration of Independence says, versus the reality. You can read quotes of Jefferson and other US founding fathers on the box, but that is not what the life of this man is all about. And look at the next painting – look at this: it depicts this tremendous carcass of McDonald’s man, one of the cultural icons of US, that is exported to the whole world.”

I look around the gallery and notice another covered head, this one by Chairman Mao’s quotes, with a statuette of a rhinoceros standing in front of the painting.


In China, of course, it is not all exclusively about socialist zeal and social consciousness; and the art is not always engaged, progressive and political. There is plenty of repetitiveness and commercialism, too, although it is clear that artistic integrity and willingness to address essential issues is incomparably more alive here than in the West.

An undeniable dose of Western nihilism can also be detected here; it already penetrated local art. It is somehow tolerated, even admired in certain circles.

Dozens of ‘top Western artists’ migrated to China, for many different reasons. Some are here to share, some to learn, although there are those who are here clearly on a mission – to neutralize political messages, to discredit socialism and to separate local art from reality.

We took a close look at one of the galleries run by several Western artists residing in Shanghai. They were not showing anything ground-breaking. What we found was just the usual diet of derogatory pop that is often passed off in the West, as Chinese New Wave: female police officers with heavy make-up, performing erotic dances inside their police car, then sexy poses of female soldiers. All Communist symbols put down, diminished, dragged through dirt.


It is not only in China: the West is working hard on trivializing all Latin American revolutions, and it is paying heavily for any attempt to de-politicize local artists, from Central to South America, from Southeast Asia to the Middle East.

While walking through the Shanghai Art District, what kept coming to my mind were the ridiculous graffiti now decorating Tahrir Square in Cairo, and what I was told about their origin. It was definitely not some homegrown Middle Eastern stuff; it was actually not unlike the ‘artwork’ of the period of the ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine and elsewhere.

But here I was, to the highest degree, impressed by how many great Chinese artists are resisting, in fact flatly rejecting those Western implants, designed to destroy all social and socialist messages.

It is obvious that leading Chinese art galleries are capable of, ready and willing to exhibit works of art that are combating all types of problems that China and the world are presently facing; from the plight of rural workers, to the changing urban landscape, social inequalities and Western imperialism.

It is also clear that their approach is constructive and socialist, not nihilistic and destructive, trying to serve the country, not to destroy it.

“Art critics admit that Chinese art now leads the world”, I was recently told by Peter King, a Professor at Sydney University.

And it is leading through its substance, not just through its form.

It is not the Chinese government, but the West that tries to muzzle local artists; to strip them of political fervor and social consciousness. And it is doing it cannily, covertly and persistently.


Sydney interacts with Chinese artists more than any other ‘Western’ city in the world. It is due to its relative geographic proximity to Asia, and also because of the growing number of Chinese students here.

The Ray Hughes Gallery in Surrey Hills was one of the first art institutions to react to the new wave in Chinese art. It now possesses one of the greatest collections of Chinese contemporary paintings in Australia, and arguably in the world. It actually began exhibiting China’s avant-garde soon after the first journey of Ray Hughes to China, in 1999. He was quick to identify the tremendous commercial potential of China’s new wave, and now his gallery hosts several vintage pieces of the iconic Luo Brothers from Nanning, as well as of Qi Zhi Long, Lin Xiaodong, Li Jin and several other famous artists.

Evan Hughes, the son of Ray Hughes, is a Cambridge-educated art collector. He is pragmatic and honest and told me during our encounter:

“Chinese art is definitely much more politically and socially engaged than that in the West, where there are hardly any political artists left. Western art had been invaded by apathy, already in 70’s and 80’s. In China there is a revolution in what can be now exhibited – political content has been liberalized.”

“We are offering the work of many important Chinese artists; some of them are political, some are not. But what makes several of them so impressive is that they went through training at the great Chinese Art academies including the Guangzhou Academy. Their technique is simply brilliant.”

The most striking example of the prominence of Chinese Art in Sydney is just a few years old, the magnificent White Rabbit Gallery in the Chippendale neighborhood. It is the first large art institution in Australia fully dedicated to modern Chinese art. It is called a gallery, but in reality it is a large multi-storey cultural center, which consists of a library, tea-room, boutique, Film Club and several enormous spaces, exhibiting some of the best contemporary artists from China.

“At White Rabbit, the art is not necessarily political”, explained Liz Keenan, Press and Publicity Director of White Rabbit Gallery. “We are aiming to bring here the best of Chinese contemporary art of the 21st century”.

Ms. Keenan walked me from floor to floor and from one avant-garde masterpiece to another. Inside White Rabbit there are canvasses, statues, structures and other art works by Cao Xiaodong, Chen Fei, Feng Yan, Gade, Xiong Wenyun and many others. There are large and often controversial works, like Wang Zhiyuan’s Thrown to the Wind, an11 meters tall, tornado of plastic containers or Ai Weiwei’s Sunflower Seeds.

But it is striking how great is the difference between the Chinese arts exhibited abroad, and the art on display in Beijing, Guangzhou and Shanghai galleries!

It is as if they came from different countries, from different galaxies.

Instead of selecting canvasses that would inspire Western audiences and dormant Western artists, instead of presenting great Chinese political and social art as an example, almost all Western galleries choose either abstract experimental or decorative works.

Of course they are great, too, but they will not change the world!


But the most celebrated, the most propagated in the West, are artists like Ai Weiwei; a staunchly anti-Communist artist and a vocal advocate of ‘Western democracy’.

Ai Weiwei, a darling of the Western mass media, recently attacked the great Chinese novelist, a winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Mo Yan. What was Mo Yan’s greatest sin? Apparently, being an unapologetic socialist and the vice chairman of the Chinese Writers Association.

In the West, no shadow of doubt can be cast on Ai Weiwei himself. He is allowed to be political, he is encouraged to regurgitate propaganda; ‘our propaganda’, of course.

Was he arrested because he was a dissident, or because he really broke the law of his country? And when we are told that ‘police broke into his million dollar studio’, should we not ask how he made those millions, and who was propagating his work? Of course, in the West, such questions are labeled as ‘unacceptable’, and ‘impolite’, almost sacrilegious!

Don’t get me wrong: I do believe that artists have to be political. It is actually their obligation to be political – to be engaged. Therefore, it should be Ai Weiwei’s right to be anti-Communist, anti-Mo Yan, while propagating Western imperialism.

As it is my right to be anti-Ai Weiwei-ian!

The problem is that those Chinese artists who believe in socialism but criticize the system in order to improve it, are generally ignored, even ridiculed in the West, unless they opt for some compromise and at least show a few exposed nipples and the legs of their female comrades in military or police uniforms!


Western art has always prostituted itself, serving those who happen to be holding the reins of power. This has gone on since the Greeks and Romans; and has continued for centuries, even millennia.

That glorified tradition of Western ‘freedom of expression’; it exists only for as long as most of the artists, media people and thinkers agree to march in closed ranks, serving the regime. As long as they repeat that the idiocy of the ‘multi-party’ system that upholds the dictatorship of elites, is superior to all other forms of governance.

Most Western operas and symphonies of the past, were written for some narcissistic king or bunch of twisted aristocrats, and were premiered in front of a closed circle of powerful spectators. Composers had patrons, they were ‘sponsored’, or they starved, not unlike now.

And painters? Almost all were falling one over another, crawling up the rear of the moneyed classes; kissing hands and other bodily parts of bishops and cardinals, dukes and emperors; those bandits, and early-days ‘patrons of the arts’.

Last year, once again, I went to the Museo de Prado in Madrid, just for a few hours, before departing for Santiago de Chile. I could not last for long there: I felt dizzy from unbridled Christian fundamentalism. I observed in disbelief, all that panoptic of Iberian kings, dukes, queens, kids from the palaces, top ranking religious crooks; all painted by Velasquez, Murillo, El Greco – the demigods of Spanish art. Compared to what is on exhibition at Prado, the Taliban look fairly secular.

And the Louvre? Once again, all those carpets hanging from the walls, depicting hunting scenes, all that amassment of furniture, old musical instruments, mugs of crooked aristocrats, religious motifs… There are a few curvy nudes, of course. If war, it is mostly glorious.

Walking through the Prado or the Louvre, one would never think that Spain and France were two great colonial, imperialist powers, causing the deaths of tens, probably hundreds of millions of innocent people in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Where were those free spirits, those great Western artists? Were they too busy dying from syphilis and cirrhosis of liver, at the same time as entire tribes and nations were being reduced to dust by the patrons of the arts?

Did we ever see artwork named: “French soldiers are slaughtering the last women and children of Grenada”, or “Spanish priests are torturing and raping Inca villagers”?

In one of the most visited museums in the world – Musée d’Orsay in Paris – all the artists seem to be engaged in having breakfast in the grass, salivating over curvy or cubist models sitting on wooden chairs, cutting off their own ears, finishing their intestines with absinth, or flying over Paris or Vitebsk with their dreamy lovers. If ‘far away places’, then they are depicted through the shining eyes of tigers or other animals, peeking from an impenetrable bush, in so called ‘primitive art’. If Polynesia is being shown; then it is through its corpulent nudes and not through some French mini-genocide committed by Jean-Baptiste Dutrou-Bornier on Easter Island.

Western artists have a history of being much more submissive than their counterparts anywhere else in the world. And there should be no doubt that the Western regime corrupted or forced into silence many more creative people than any other dictatorship in the history of mankind!

According to the Stuttgart-based painter and political cartoonist, Marina Wiedemann:

“Contemporary art in Europe is a total debacle. Exceptions: sure there are some. But it all feels like some polluted swamp: on the surface are those handpicked artists you are expected to stuff your face with… the art that you are being fed with, by the establishment… underneath, a brutal fight for joining those who are already floating and visible. And artists who are really talented and have plenty to say: they have no chance to surface at all, as they are kept under, by the most celebrated shit covering the surface.”

The greatest political artist of Southeast Asia, Djokopekik from Indonesia, commented for this essay:

“I am not too interested in Western art, but from the little that I know, it seems that Western artists really like to paint without considering the situation in their part of the world and in the world in general. And the world is now in mourning because of so many ills and so many deaths, while Western artists still continue to live happily, making lots of money, and not thinking about other people who are suffering.”

Djokopekik, who is of course a much greater artist than Ai Weiwei, spent years in brutal imprisonment during the pro-Western dictatorship of General Suharto. It goes without saying that there was no mass campaign in the West to free him, or to demand ‘freedom of expression’ in Indonesia.

But back to the rectum: let’s fetch those free and proud Western artists from its depth, and ask them ‘why on earth’, or more precisely ‘why the hell’ they ended up on their pathetic ego-trips, instead of dedicating their lives to showing the horrors their governments and cultures are committing all over the world?

In the past the West had at least a few great painters, like Goya, Delacroix, Picasso. Now? Where are those daring to paint Belgrade or Baghdad after bombing, of the Laotian and Cambodian countryside after receiving millions of tons of bombs, or the torture chambers in Chile, Argentina? Do we know of some great Western painter who would be working in East Kivu in DR Congo or in Palestine?

I will tell you who does it: the Latin Americans and the Chinese! Not gringos and Europeans.

I was recently filming in one tremendous museum in Santiago de Chile: the Museum of Memory and Human Rights. There is everything that one has to know about the US violating human rights, by manufacturing and supporting Latin American dictatorships. The architecture of the museum is splendid, combining an old villa and several stories of imposing glass and steel.

And in one of the exhibition halls: I discovered paintings by one of the greatest contemporary artists – Fernando Botero; that very Botero from Colombia, who is famous all over the world for his paintings and sculptures of fat and nude women. But this time there were no buttocks and breasts, just Muslim men with their hands tied behind their backs, blindfolded; their bodies tortured, with dogs jumping on their exposed chest.

Abu Ghraib; the horrors of Abu Ghraib! I stood in front of the paintings, motionless, for many long minutes, and my glasses got foggy; I was overwhelmed. Not because what I saw was telling me something new: I have covered Western wars and atrocities for many years. But I was overwhelmed with gratitude towards this grand Colombian artist, because here, once again, he had demonstrated what exactly the art is capable of doing and should be doing.

If he, if others like him, had something to say about Chinese art, I would listen. And I am sure that China would listen as well.

But there is absolutely nothing we can learn from artistic cowardice and impotence arriving from London and New York, Paris and Berlin! There is nothing we can learn about ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ from the cultures responsible for hundreds of millions of people murdered on all continents.

Artists of the world should unite against nihilism and spinelessness coming from Europe and North America. To hell with their money, and as Sukarno used to say: “To hell with their aid!” and their ‘funding’.

Let them paint their lines and ovals. Let them piss on the canvases, spread it all over and call it art. Let them cover their internal emptiness with abstractions. Alternatively, let them paint flowers for luxury hotels and villas of the millionaires.

The great Argentine painter, Alberto Bruzzone, once said: “I cannot paint flowers or motherhood, when they are killing my students on the street!”

Many Chinese painters feel the same: they have no time to deal with their sexuality, with personal fears and desires, while there are still hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens living in poverty, and billions all over the world living in slavery!

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific – Oceania – is published by Lulu. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear” (Pluto). After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website.