This commentary about possibly the true Rosa Parks is not to ridicule, insult, or belittle, but to clarify some very important facts that have gone unwarranted by millions of people in America.

According to the book by Ralph David Abernathy, And The Walls Came Tumbling Down, on page 131, first paragraph, and I quote:

“Most accounts of the Montgomery bus boycott began with the refusal of Rosa Parks to obey a bus driver’s order. As a matter of fact, two black women had
already been arrested earlier in the year. One of them, Claudette Colvin, a fifteen year old student, had been dragged from the bus and charged with assault and battery as well as failure to comply with Jim Crow laws governing public transportation.”

Rosa Parks’s character, that of a soft-spoken courteous woman, and slight in stature, sounds unlike the person who turned out to be defiant, emboldened, and fearless in the face of white oppressors, capable of unlawfully lynching her without sanction. After reading Mr. Abernathy’s book over and over again for the past 15 years and doing research I came to the conclusion that the NAACP planned the whole event to test the segregation laws in Montgomery Alabama in the federal courts. But why Rosa Parks? What was so special about her?
These two questions puzzled me time and again and left me blank of mind. I just could not see how Rosa Parks’s appearance on the bus that day could have been random. Her character was totally out of context with her behavior.

Thereafter I peered into the Plessy v. Ferguson case. What was I looking for? I was after any evidence that would shed light on why Rosa Parks. In Plessy v. Ferguson we learn that Homer Plessy was a Octoroon, a light-skinned Creole. That is, he had only one eighth black blood. In fact, Plessy was genetically a white man. But the owners of the train wanted the strict letter of the law to be followed. Blacks and whites period would occupy separate cars, but whites alone would ride in luxury and style.

When we examine the case microscopically we apprehend that Plessy’s image, that of a near white Anglo-Saxon, rather than a charcoal-black African, raised eyebrows after he lost his case in the Supreme Court. But the choice to use Plessy by influential Creole Civic Louisiana businessmen could have been due to his white features in order to attract white sentiment. However, neither white sentiment nor the fourteenth Amendment, the separate but equal clause, did Plessy any good.

This strategy to use Plessy because of his skin color is Mulattoism. And was not novel. White American men since slavery began in 1609 favored Mulattoes over the darker black claiming they were inferior to the Mulattoes, who possessed
white blood and undoubtedly were superior in intelligence as a result. And this philosophy paved the way for whites to better control blacks by dividing the race on intra-racial grounds.

Once I understood the context and depths of this last paragraph I realized some very important points about Rosa Parks. Miss Parks great grandfather was Scottish and Irish and probably unmixed with African blood. So Rosa had features
that would mirror Anglo-Saxon features. In which case they would appeal to white women and men socially and biologically by design.

There is evidence that Homer Plessy was part of a planned challenge to the 1890 Louisiana Separate Car Act by the Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law by a small group of black professionals in New
Orleans. And historically, we can draw inferences from this, or repeat its social paradigm should the same or similar
circumstances arise in our own time. This I believe is why Rosa Parks was chosen. I say that for several reasons: 1. She worked for the NAACP. Coincidence? 2. She was a Mulatto. 3. She was fair skinned. 4. She possessed features resembling Anglo-Saxon women. In addition, the same set of reasons, used to harness Plessy were at work here. To challenge Montgomery Alabama’s Jim Crow Laws.

Now, let us go one step further with this argument. Another black individual had also challenged the white racist establishment in the south before Rosa Parks. It was Bayard Rustin in 1942, who boarded a Tennessee bus in the
white section, and was beaten for his insolence and refusal to be seated in the black section. However in Rustin’s case and because he was a devout homosexual, the NAACP categorized him as the wrong image. Plus Bayard was dark-skinned, and his features were more African than European.

Moreover, Bayard Rustin challenged southern segregationists on his own. It is a wonder they did not kill him. And at the time lynching was prosaic. You could say the NAACP discriminated against Mr. Rustin on the grounds he was homosexual. Which is a contradiction. If they were for equal rights for all, than why exclude the accomplishments of Mr. Rustin, in spite of his homosexuality.

This then helped me to apprehend the truth about Rosa Parks. She was a pawn. But a pawn with the right appeal that the NAACP looked for to undertake their political ploy. It was her near white color and Scottish-Irish background that they sought to exploit, and above all, she was not a convicted felon as Bayard Rustin. But NAACP’s legal strategy was no different than
the Louisiana businessmen and Homer Plessy of some 70 years
earlier. In contrast, Bayard Rustin was born in Pennsylvania and not the south. Wrong region. Northern black boys were not slaves; and slavery was the issue, and the South was the focus.

So Bayard Rustin’s efforts were undermined. In fact, they were cast totally aside. And as a result my liberalism and thirst for truth will not allow me to honor Rosa Parks because of this, because Parks’s challenge of the white segregationists was dishonest. It hinged on Mulattoism, not an honest act of
altruism as Bayard displayed, but an act based on racial class distinction determined by white rule, and accepted by both southern and northern black leaders. And this, in and of itself is racism, but intra-racial racism to be exact. And that is exactly why I’m convinced Rosa Parks was chosen.

The desire for denuclearization is in game theory the tragedy of the commons. And it means that though the superpowers know it is in their own best interest to denuclearize, that being to avoid a nuclear war and its consequences, however, rather than be rational, they choose to continue stockpiling nuclear weapons. In principle, they do this because they can never be certain that the other countries with nuclear weapons will keep their agreement, and reduce their stockpile, believing it is in their own best interests to maintain production of their nuclear arsenal. And to avoid being discovered by UN peacekeeping forces or on site inspectors directed by the UN security council, they stockpile their most advanced weapons systems underground in secret bunkers. Thus we realize, in truth, no nation is willing to totally cooperate with the other, but would rather defect and continue amassing nuclear weapons, since it is in their own best interest to do so, regardless of their UN membership status. And consequently, our fate for the future will be an unavoidable nuclear war.

Admiral Mike Mullen, on Face The Nation today, Sunday July 5, 2009, mentioned Israel launching a first strike, or preemptive strike against Iran. I take it he meant an aggressive nuclear attack on an Islamic country without there being a real current physical threat of some kind from that particular nation. To engage in nuclear war without probable cause, other than a defensive counterattack, means such unscrupulous behavior will surely have disastrous effects globally. One event is sure to occur thereafter, and that is, other Islamic countries that are democratic and partial to the US or the West and perhaps members of the UN, like Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, maybe even Turkey and Saudi Arabia, could change sides, due to a religious affinity. Such a strategy, whether overt or covert, would come about from religious sect pressure, such as, the Sunnis, the Shi´ites, the Zoroastrians, Christians, or other religious sects within each regime.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty since August 2008 halted any forward progress to enter the organizational phase in 2009. Thus this impasse reeks of uncertainty for all the countries involved, including the US, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and many others for the future. Which reinforces my suspicion about the assertion of the Tragedy of the Commons. Besides that, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty discriminates on the bases of economic wealth as well, and thus prevents other nations such as Pakistan, North Korea, India and Iran for example, from having a strong political voice in world affairs in the UN security Council, which consist mainly of five major countries. The US being one of them, and Russia another. Such disparity leaves the excluded nations no choice but to act totally in their own best interests. The adoption of UN security council resolution 1874, 12 June 2009, by the General Assembly, has only a marginal affect on North Korea’s push forward with nuclear testing. And this means you can only push people so far, and that goes for countries too, before they stop caring about the consequences of their actions.

The Seventh Man

When the first nuclear weapons were produced at Los Alamos under the Manhattan Project it is obvious the US perceived such an accomplishment as one of a kind. That is, that they, the US government, would lead, as well as dominate the world in military might. It is hard to apprehend why they presumed the rest of the world would sit idly by and just let them [the US] dictate the rules of life based on the rules of war. Since they now had the atomic power to crush a nation without much ground-fighting or risk to human life.

Shortly after careful study and testing at Los Alamos New Mexico from 1942 to 1945, and the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 1945, the US government learned that its enemy the Russians had the atomic bomb. Suddenly the game changed. No longer did the US sit atop the realm of the atomic mountain of mass destruction alone, but thereafter they had to share it with the Russians.

And down through the years they have continued to misjudge other countries equally eager in producing a nuclear bomb for their own protection in an otherwise hostile world. Is this equity? Is it okay for the fox to raid the chicken coop, while all the other foxes sit idly by and go hungry? I don’t think so, and neither should the American government. One kid can’t have all the money to buy all the candy in the neighborhood candy store. Some other kids will have to have a chance to acquire money and buy too. That is just the way the world has become today.

Now other developing countries want atomic protection in addition. Why shouldn’t they be any less equipped with the bomb? Even if it gives you a false since of security. That is to say, that as proliferation moves ahead, an even greater risk of nuclear annihilation is ever looming on the horizon. There is no other way to assess it. And even though the big countries with atomic weapons know this, they are powerless to stop less developing countries from aspiring to better arm themselves against a nuclear war, in which, they realize they will be defenseless if they don’t acquire the technology needed to build the A-bomb, the N-bomb, the H-bomb, or Thermonuclear technology.

To deny other countries the right to possess weapons equal to the weapons the superpowers possess is a form of world Imperialism. This type of game theory strategy is the underlying factor that is driving nuclear proliferation throughout the globe. The psychology that only the superpowers are divinely worthy to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction is falling on death ears. No one wants to be without an ace-in-the-whole, so-to-speak, in this nuclear day and age, or in a time of a world war. Or think of it this way, your friend has a nuclear bomb, and you want to be like your friend; so you want one too. Or your enemy has an atomic bomb, and you want to be like your enemy; so you want one too.

Imperialism, espionage, the meddling in the internal affairs of others, usurpation, enslavement by military means, military intimidation, the establishment of puppet regimes, the turning of one country against another by lies and deceit for the ultimate takeover, has all occurred in the past to stop weaker countries, by stronger ones with nuclear weapons, from the achievements they have attained,
[the stronger ones] that is, the military power to destroy an entire city. And to prevent these smaller weaker countries from being the masters of their own destinies in this global society by any means.

The wanting of nuclear weapons by less developed countries such as Iran or North Korea, is not uncommon a desire. Why shouldn’t they want to protect themselves from those that wield atomic power? That is, to prevent, or deter a nuclear preemptive strike. What is wrong with that? What we have here is a double standard, which these smaller less developed countries no longer see as sustainable, and moreover, as they see it, both morally and militarily wrong. There is only one way to stop the expansion of WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, and that is for the superpowers to begin comprehensive denuclearization now, and can the UN crap, or be run over by the smaller countries with an inexorable political will, and money, to develop nuclear bombs for their own self protection. And as destiny has in the past provided the knowledge for a few to acquire nuclear weapons, destiny will for many in the future.

The Seventh Man

Traditionally, Americans are spoon fed, political baby food, when it comes to foreign affairs. Mainly the lower and middle classes. What they do apprehend are human rights. And that is at the most fundamental level perceived.

When it comes to foreign affairs they normally get it wrong. Not all the time, but most of the time. The US government often camouflages the truth in order to protect American interests.

In terms of Iran and the Iranian government the American people are mainly up in arms about how free speech is being sanctioned. What they fail to understand moreover, is how the Iranian government is undivided on the issue of the election turnout. The right to sovereignty as an independent regime is a moral right.