Malik Zulu Shabazz (Chairman New Black Panther Party) says Zionists Control Media

March 25, 2011

concerning the philosophy of MLK and non violent resistance. the FBI will release the documents concerning the movement in 2024. Most of us will live to see the release of this information. It will prove without a doubt that MLK was not committed to the philosophy of non violence and was in fact using it as a public relations stunt for a movement that was committed to violent revolution. many of my generation have been indoctrinated into the philosophy of MLK, but in a little over a decade we will see that in fact the FBI and CIA were interested in furthering the flawed propaganda of MLK because they used it as a means to control populations to this day. MLK was a lot more dynamic then most historians have given him credit for and it is a great irony that a charade that he used to further a very worthy cause was eventually used to subdue that same cause for half a century. justice, freedom and the right to live in dignity are not accomplished with non violence. it is only through revolutionary struggle that the rights articulated in our constitution are upheld. It is very sad to see how much abuse is done in the name of non violence. it would of been impossible for MLK to of known that his own revolutionary charade would of been used against him after his death.

On March 8th, 2011, Malik Zulu Shabazz, the National Chairman of the New Black Panther Party, spoke at an event at Depaul University, entitled The Legacy of Malcolm X. I have obtained the audio from the event. The event was organized by Depaul’s United Muslims Moving Ahead, (UMMA, how cute!) a student group.
Due note that the audio is nearly two hours, I have listened to all of it and much of it is quite boring, except for one 40 second outburst by Malik Zulu Shabazz, which occurs roughly 1 hour 41 minutes in:

It was not too long after 9/11 that I was just listening and I would hear everybody give a different view, a different opinion, and a different standpoint on all the exact same information that they got from CNN. So it gets you to thinking, what about the people who control CNN and all the other major media institutions.  The same people that control all the major media institutions are the same people that control Hollywood. They are the same people that own all the major distribution companies for music. I won’t say Jew, but Zionist. Right. And with this power, they are able to manipulate and mold the popular opinion of the masses on such an extreme scale, to which your opinions aren’t really your own. 

Audio of the quote:

What is so troubling about this event is that this is the message that young Muslims on US campuses are being indoctrinated into, and there are no dissenting voices offered. This was a university sanctioned exercise in hate speech, and what is so pernicious is that there is a well known double-standard in place at DePaul that if a Jewish or Israeli speaker were to make similar comments about, say, a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to destroy the West’s wicked house from within, they would certainly have been challenged, and probably have been cancelled. 
So this is the message that United Muslims Moving Ahead wants to promote, that the Jews/Zionists are in control of the government, news, banking and entertainment industries. I think they should change their name from United Muslims Moving Ahead to United Muslims Unending Antisemitism, because if we’re learned anything from the turmoil in the Middle East, the one uniting factor for every group is good old fashioned Jew-hatred.
Summary of rest of Shabazz’s talk

In the rest of his speech Shabazz talks about non-violent protests led by Malcolm X and MLK Jr. He then spoke a bit about the growth of the Nation of Islam @ 60:00. He talked about his childhood and how it was being part of a family that was well known. He then spoke a bit about his time in prison. He then mentioned his travels through the Middle East and that few people in the Middle East knew about Malcolm X, unless they were in the upper echelon of society. He then began to speak about his grandfather and his rise to prominence and what he learned from him. @ 88:20 He says that he does not like to speak , but when he does he stresses education and unity. He then said @ 97:15 that he went to Libya recently as part of a delegation, which included Cynthia McKinney and met with Moammar Gadaffi. He says he went as part of delegation for diplomatic relations and that what is going on now is different than what was happening when he was there. He also said that what was happening was different than what the media was saying. Shabazz’s speech more or less came to a close after the quote I mentioned above.


DePaul University Says No to Pro-Marijuana-Legalization Group; Finkelstein was fine?

October 19, 2010
so the students of this Chicago University
can not have dialogs about this….
…but of course attacks on Israel
by professors they hired is fine?

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has the details. The university admits that it is excluding the group from generally available student group registration benefits, because the university disapproves of the group’s message:

Considerable research indicates the use of cannabis does not contribute to healthy decision-making, particularly in college-age populations. Given the above, the University determined that recognizing the “Students for Cannabis Policy Reform Group” as a DePaul student organization would not be congruent with out institutional goals regarding the health and well-being of our students.

I rather doubt that recognizing such a group would materially affect the level of marijuana use by DePaul students. But denying recognition would affect the amount of debate about marijuana policy that takes place. Sounds like unhealthy decision-making on the university’s part to me.
DePaul is a private university, so it’s free to engage in unhealthy decision-making. But banning the expression of some views, it seems to me, is the gateway drug to broader restrictions as well, restrictions that are even more dangerous to the culture of debate and discussion that universities, private and public, ought to be promoting. DePaul itself has officially stated, in its Guiding Principles on Speech and Expression that it is “committed to fostering a community that welcomes open discourse.” And while that document seems to suggest that DePaul’s Catholic mission may support some restrictions aimed at protecting “dignity,” “respect,” and “civility,” I don’t see anything in that statement that justifies discrimination against student speech that promotes legalization of marijuana. So I’m glad that FIRE is taking DePaul to task for its position.
Finally, DePaul’s letter suggests that denying recognition to the student group would still leave open “myriad opportunities for students to gather together and express their views to the larger community regarding the use of and/or legalization of cannabis.” But if indeed the group will be able to speak as effectively without the benefits of recognition, then I don’t see how the university’s action will further its stated goals. And if the university’s action will somehow diminish the amount of speech that might promote “[un]healthy decision-making,” then that must mean that the university hopes the group will not speak as effectively without the benefits of recognition.