Fundamentalist Feminism (2018 version “introduced” by the oracle Selma James)



I created this composite image in December 2016 to depict "gender gyrations" in UK and US politics.
I created this composite image in December 2016 to depict “gender gyrations” in UK and US politics.


In a couple of weeks I will be marking the 12th anniversary of the first publication of my article Fundamentalist Feminism.

I re-publish that article here today, February 15th 2017, for a number of reasons, including as a prelude to an upcoming third conversation with the feminist Marxist thinker Selma James, best known, according to Wikipedia, as the founder of the International Wages For Housework Campaign.

As a feminist myself, I am obliged to problematize what Wikipedia apparently accepts uncritically.

Is there not a paradox here, possibly?

How is it that the woman who has perhaps done more than anyone else to have a spotlight shone on the economic value of women’s unwaged, private or invisible work, can be considered “best known” for work done in the glare of public scrutiny?

What of her private, unwaged, invisible work legacy?

Shouldn’t that work be “rescued” from obscurity?

During a brief conversation with James today, only our second so far and occurring exactly on the first anniversary of our first conversation, which took place on February 15, 2017, intriguingly, I got a glimpse into how she resolves this paradox by asserting her right to privacy.

I also got a sense, of the depth of her and my shared belief in serendipity as she agreed that the mirroring dates of our twin conversations was noteworthy.

James, the third wife and long-time collaborator of Trinidadian Trotskyist CLR James also flashed me a hint of her extraordinary humility, saying of her relationship with the Caribbean bard “I was just his secretary, really.”

And the crisis that is a consequence as much of James’ working class roots, perhaps, as it is a tributary of the tangled relations at the heart of male-female interdependence generally, is thus brought into stark relief.

The obscurity at the interface of human procreation and productivity, the conception and birthing of every “brain child” remains intact for James, despite her being a mother of millions, conceptually.

I address this morphological marital dilemma, a crisis of identity, essentially, in Fundamentalist Feminism where I explore what I call “gender complementarity”.

And I am anticipating a lengthy and fruitful Correspondence with James around these and related issues as we pursue what from my point of view seems like a dialogue that was divinely destined to be.

Working as a paid “carer” myself, in both knowledge trading (intellectual property) and the less glamorous “adult nappy changing” and wider “carnal knowledge” curating (bodily health maintaining) capacities, I feel both a sense of indebtedness to James and a sense of unease.

Where might these signs of serendipity and synchronicity lead?

Might she one day be a nurse-needing participant in my Holistic Home Care and Hospitality project, like the oracle Janice Gurney?

What should I make of my connections to James through a Europe-based Barbadian colleague who apparently shares what from my point of view is a flawed, Fentonesque confidence in the potential of literacy?

And then there is James’ picturesque and “picturate” presaging of the artist Deborah Liversage, so near and dear to me…


Selma James' and Deborah Liversage's winning ways.
Selma James’ and Deborah Liversage’s winning ways – a composite image.


What omen, good or ill, might one cipher from the proximity of my second conversation with James, born Weinstein, to the emergence of the “Me too” movement and my own irregular, oracular literary and other efforts to ensure that this extraordinarily movie and wider media manufactured tempest does not wipe the long, low frequency record of female-on-female sexual harassment, rape and murder clean?

Might my “channeling” of both Selma’s and her late husband’s theorizing around the issue of homosexuality prompt the “seen it all” actress Sharon Stone, of Mosaic fame currently, to  finally answer the question I put to her, via Twitter, about female-female sexual violence in the movie and wider media industry?

A constructive engagement with the less prominent National Union of Journalists members Arjum Wahid and Nick McGowan-Lowe about the relevance of my “Help Google Be Good” petition to the journalism profession may be more likely.

In that petition I liken excessive elements of Google’s information ecology footprint to Harvey Weinstein’s catalytic and as is now clear, catastrophic libidinous lechery, incidentally.

And somewhere along that rope there is a knot called Gaia Pope, that ties James’ views on epilepsy to a testimony of hope: a lump in this writer’s throat that is free of the mild malignancy of Geoffrey Boycott’s cricket commentary.

A grammar school educated Rachael Heyhoe-Flint approximating cricket shero  James might not be.

But the 87 year old has not only demonstrated comparable moral mettle but also outlived the younger Baroness Heyhoe-Flint who died aged 77 last January.

Like her late cricketer-historian husband who died age 88 in 1989, James therefore demonstrates a penchant for pragmatically penetrating all kinds of boundaries.

J Campbell

February 15th, 2018

Fundamentalist Feminism

major threat to women, men and the family: a threat to humanity

Introduction: an appeal to the United Nations and other international agencies

My purpose here is to expose fundamentalist feminism, an ideological and political movement that I believe is one of the greatest threats facing women, men, the family and society generally today.

I have chosen to deal with this issue on the eve of International Women’s Day precisely because I hope to attract the attention of bodies such as the United Nations to this issue.

There is a view, in some quarters, that the work of the United Nations and other international agencies is excessively and unjustly influenced by feminist politicos whose zeal to advance women’s issues is not being balanced by a reasonable concern for challenges facing men.

This certainly is one way of interpreting the comments of Barbadian Parliamentarian Trevor Prescod who, while addressing a men’s meeting some years ago expressed the concern that attempts by males to bring balance to gender issues in international meetings were being more or less “shouted down” by women. Prescod suggested that women attending such meetings were “winning” the arguments by virtue of the sheer number of them present.

Of course, it stands to reason that in the absence of meaningful dialogue – where all sides to an issue are given a reasonable hearing, there can be no real winners. The reduction of discussion on gender issues to a “war of words” between the sexes benefits no one, for as Calypsonian Singing Sandra of Trinidad and Tobago has said, “Nobody; nobody wins a war”.

When dialogue on gender issues deteriorates into a verbal war between males and females, as in physical war, perhaps more so – because without meaningful dialogue there can be no hope for genuine solutions – it is our essential humanity, which transcends gender, ethnic, religious and similar boundaries, that suffers.

I pray that this appeal will have some weight and consequences among the male and female personnel of international agencies and all others who have the interest of humanity at heart. If one man, woman or child is helped by this initiative my purpose will have been achieved.


My purpose here is to expose fundamentalist feminism, an ideological and political movement that I believe is one of the greatest threats facing women, men, the family and society generally today.

Fundamentalist feminism defined

Basically, fundamentalist feminism is an aggregate or body of ideas that promote an unrealistic, and unhealthy concept of women by exaggerating their strengths and virtues and concealing their vices and weaknesses. At the heart of fundamentalist feminism, is the suggestion that women are capable only of good, and not of evil.

Essentially, fundamentalist feminism blames men and men’s dominance (also called “patriarchy”) of politics, religion, business, the family etc, for most or all of the problems facing society.

Fundamentalist feminism overlooks or conceals the complicity of women (mothers, wives, sisters, consorts and other women) in the “evil that men do”.

Fundamentalist feminists label instances of such “complicity” as evidence of women’s victimization and abuse, freeing them of both blame and responsibility.

It is to that extent – at least – essentially anti-feminist, dis-empowering women.

Like fundamentalist religious, racial, political and other ideological systems, fundamentalist feminism is based on predominantly simplistic, one-sided analysis that favors its “messiah-types”.

So, just as Christians, Rastafarians, black people or white people are viewed as “infallible” heroes in their respective fundamentalist systems, women are viewed as humanity’s only hope in fundamentalist feminism.

The interdependence of males and females – an essential feature of the human condition and an inescapable prerequisite of our material and spiritual well-being, that is normally apparent to all – is thus ignored or understated by fundamentalist feminists.

The joint responsibility of men and women for humanity’s successes and failures is denied.

The basic belief of fundamentalist feminism is that women are good and men are bad: women are non-violent and peacemakers, men are violent and war mongers; women are honest, men are dishonest. In short, fundamentalist feminism teaches that women are morally superior to men.

Fundamentalist feminism is therefore a kind of “reverse chauvinism”.

It has roots in the challenge of the women’s movement to “male chauvinism”, but unlike the more salutary segments of the women’s movement, it is not concerned with gender “equality”. Fundamentalist feminism audaciously declares the superiority of women! The goal of empowerment for women is not advanced in the context of equality, but rather in the context of domination.

Writing on feminist legal theory, Erin Pizzey, founder of the women’s refuge movement, notes in a December 2000 article that “the ideology of legal feminism today goes far beyond the original and widely supported goal of equal treatment for both sexes.” She says “The new agenda is to redistribute power from the ‘dominant class’ (men) to the ‘subordinate class’ (women), and such key concepts of Western jurisprudence as judicial neutrality and individual rights are declared to be patriarchal fictions designed to protect male privilege.”

On November 18th 2005, I sought to share Pizzey’s views with an audience gathered at the eleventh annual Caribbean Women Catalysts for Change Lecture, hosted by the University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus’ Centre for Gender and Development Studies. The lecture was delivered by Madame Justice Desiree Bernard, the first female judge of the recently instituted Caribbean Court of Justice.

I was disappointed, though not surprised, to find that no one else attending the lecture, male or female, seemed to have heard of Pizzey. This “anonymity” accords with Pizzey’s own testimony of the ostracism to which she has been subjected by many influential feminists and their male supporters, because of her views. It supports her assessment that:

“There was, and still is, a strict censorship against anyone trying to break the code of silence. No one wants to acknowledge the extent of the damage that the feminist movement has done to the family and to men in the last thirty years.”

Pizzey does not claim to be a feminist or any other “ist”. She describes herself simply as ‘a lover of God in all his aspects.’ She did join the women’s movement in her native England in 1971.

However, she says she did so with reservations because of the movement’s leftist and totalitarian leanings. She speaks of standing up in many “violent and threatening collectives” of the movement, to tell its leaders that “hating all men” was not something she wanted to be a part of. She says she was “hated with a passion” because of her views and ultimately excluded from this “liberation” movement.

Pizzey also tells of boycotts by members of the press, withdrawn invitations to speak publicly and other obstacles that have been set in her path since she has left the movement and has been seeking to challenge what she sees as its ill-founded and socially destructive strains – what I call fundamentalist feminism.

Concerns I share with Pizzey include:

  1. fundamentalist feminist propagation of such erroneous ideas as a) women are not as capable of violence as men b) women are not as likely to abuse children as men and therefore make better parents than men and c) women are less likely than men to be afflicted by “political power-hunger”
  2. fundamentalist feminist corruption of the legal system, leading to a) fathers of children being denied their rights b) the introduction of laws that are founded on presumptions of women’s innocence or are otherwise biased toward women
  3. fundamentalist feminist influence on education leading to discrimination against boys by both male and female teachers
  4. fundamentalist feminist domination of the discipline of “women studies” (I benefited from a few courses in this discipline and think it has redeeming qualities but I am not sure Pizzey would agree)
  5. fundamentalist feminists’ hijacking of the legitimate causes of women – for political and monetary gain, and
  6. media cover-up or suppression of the very real short-comings and dangers of fundamentalist feminism.

I also identify in a profoundly personal way with Pizzey’s story. I share the following details of my own experience because I think it provides significant insights into the essential pathos of the fundamentalist feminist psyche (power-hungriness and glory grabbing – what I call the Lie-e-lah syndrome) and its opportunistic operation in the political realm.

By exposing the evil that fundamentalist feminism generates I hope to encourage a more wholesome, authentic feminism. I do not believe fundamentalist feminism’s primary threats are its threats to men’s well-being: I believe its primary threats are to the well-being of women.

Just as fundamentalist Christianity is anti-Christian at its core, so too fundamentalist feminism is profoundly anti-feminist. Rooted in a denial of truth, it tends toward self-alienation and therefore exposes women to delusions (of insignificance or grandeur).

The stories of the sociopathic behaviour of two individuals recounted here, makes this clear. Their stories, intertwined with my own, are set out below. I have given them fictitious but appropriate names – “The Liar” and “Market Guilt” – to conceal their identities. I have also “confused” their genders, deliberately using masculine or feminine nouns and pronouns inaccurately to refer to either or both of them, and in some cases, to their male and female allies and/or consorts.

In addition to further concealing their identities, this strategy of “gender confusion” reinforces two recurring points made here: 1. that fundamentalist feminism is profoundly anti-feminist and 2) that not only females embrace and/or exploit fundamentalist feminist ideas to serve their misguided, selfish political or other agendas. At a deeper, symbolic level, it also hints at the complex “homo-ideological” (on the verge of homosexual) properties of the fundamentalist feminist psyche.

At a basic level, of course, the concealment of these individuals’ identities also protects me from legal liability. I can vouch for the truth of what I say here, but it has so far been impossible to find anyone else that can do that who is willing to. A wall of intimidating silence has been constructed to shield The Liar and Market Guilt from the just consequences of the distressingly deceitful behaviour they and their allies have perpetrated.

Even the office of the Ombudsman in Barbados, to which I turned for relief around 2000-2001 has failed to breach that wall. I hope the publication of this document will inspire at least one of the persons who can corroborate my story with the courage he/she needs to do so.

My experience of fundamentalist feminism

I have never joined a feminist organization, but like Pizzey, I have been a supporter of legitimate, genuine feminist causes for many years. Among other things, as a free-lance journalist I have written and produced material on Violence Against Women for UNIFEM and the Caribbean Media Corporation (formerly the Caribbean News Agency or CANA). I was also the privileged, sole male participant at a “round-table” on women in politics, hosted by the Caribbean Association for Feminist Research (CAFRA), some years ago.

Like Pizzey, I too have suffered exclusion, victimization and isolation by feminists because of my refusal to ignore the shortcomings of feminism. And, just as there seems to be an attempt to erase Pizzey’s contribution to women’s causes and her very existence from history, there seems to be an attempt to erase my own work and existence, in the Barbadian and wider Caribbean context.

The media in Barbados is playing a critical role in this. On the March 14th, 2002 edition of the popular local radio call-in program “Brass Tacks”, senior Starcom Network staff member and host David Ellis launched a broadside against my organization Intelek International and myself. I had by then been engaged in a little publicized “feud” with other staff members or associates of Starcom Network, or its parent organization, the Nation Publishing Company for some time.

One catalyst for this “feud’, was a dispute I had with The Liar, a former media personality, over an extravagantly unethical breach of intellectual property he committed against me. This man/woman has for some time challenged my contribution to an artistic production in which he/she participated in the late 1990s. I contested, and still contest, her failure to mention my contribution to that production when he announced the credits the night of the production.

My dispute with this individual escalated as members of Barbados’ feminist movement, led by Market Guilt rallied to cover-up or otherwise excuse The Liar’s “oversight”. Among other things, Mr. Guilt, an acknowledged psychiatric sufferer (possibly a schizophrenic) has argued that The Liar was entitled to use an idea to which I introduced her because no one can claim “ownership” of an idea. I am familiar with this view, held by many communist-leaning persons, but have never seriously engaged Ms. Guilt on it because the fundamental point for me was The Liar’s failure to acknowledge my contribution on the night of the production. I thought, and still think this was the least she could do, since she had asked my permission to use the idea.

The dispute has escalated even further though, taking on political dimensions, as one of the organizations hosting the production became a catalyst for the cultural renaissance that is currently sweeping Barbados. Bolstered by the innocent and perhaps naive attention of then Minister of Education, Culture, Youth Affairs and Sport (subsequetly Barbados’ Attorney General, now Minister of Economic Development) Mia Mottley, The Liar went on to claim that she was “the Founder” of that organization.

I view this exaggeration as a spectacular manifestation of the “Lie-e-lah” syndrome, to which fundamentalist feminism is prone, because of its power hungry, glory grabbing and truth-twisting propensities. It is more accurate to view Market Guilt, myself and other persons as co-founders of the organization in question.

The founding of this organization is in fact a fine example of the operation of the male-female interdependence to which I referred above.

However, The Liar’s coveting of the “founder” role is consistent with the unethical breach of and flagrant disregard for principles of intellectual property that remains the genesis of our dispute – and my dispute with Market Guilt.

Indeed, Ms. Mottley, The Liar, Market Guilt and other local fundamentalist feminists seem to prefer a radical feminist interpretation of the history of the organization that erases the seminal male influences behind it, represented by its male founding members. They seem to favour a fundamentalist feminist interpretation of Barbados’ cultural legacy that exaggerates women’s contributions – implying that the organization in question was the product of a virtual “virgin birth”. They seem committed to projecting the idea that it is mainly women who were (and are) prepared to bear the sacrifices and take the risks that have transformed the particular area of Barbados’ cultural landscape with which I am concerned, from a virtual barren wasteland (as far as the current generation of practitioners is concerned (no disrespect is intended toward outstanding Barbadian forerunners of this artistic discipline), to the fruitful plain that it now is.

Actually, one highly placed female academic has even gone so far as to declare that women may be more disposed to be this kind of artist because they are more spiritual than men! The “virgin birth” view of the organization merits more scrutiny than may at first be apparent.

Now, I am not suggesting that this academic is a fundamentalist feminist. On the contrary, my interactions with her suggest that she is a quite reasonable human being whose thinking is characterized by balance, not extreme opinion. A successful academic, she certainly does not seem disposed to the power-hunger or glory grabbing of the Lie-e- lah syndrome.

I therefore believe this academic’s views were arrived at by a simple observation of the current gender profile of Barbados’ cultural landscape. The fact is, thanks largely to the manipulations of fundamentalist feminists, and the complicit, slanted and superficial reporting of the males and females of local media houses who support them, it may well appear that Barbados’ current cultural renaissance originated with and is being led by females. The ill-founded projection of The Liar as the initiator and embodiment of this renaissance has been critical in the creation and perpetuation of this false impression.

That exaggerated, Lie-e-lan impression of Barbados’ current cultural flowering is based fundamentally on a denial or devaluation of the role of male artists – including my own role. And, at least in my case, this denial or devaluation has not come about “accidentally”: it has been achieved by a sustained, systematic campaign of character assassination, beginning with the charge that my disagreement with The Liar over the project mentioned above, stemmed from my being jealous over her success with that project.

I have been represented as an envious, dishonest and unprincipled person, seeking to reap success where I have not sown the requisite seeds of creative or administrative effort. I have been hated, shunned and ridiculed by fellow artists in Barbados’ relatively close-knit creative community. I have been made the object of (and still am plagued by) an unofficial boycott or “embargo” of some kind, which limits my capacity to trade as fully as I desire in intellectual property in this country. I believe the following incidents and situations are evidence of this boycott or embargo:

  • The non-playing of music and other audio material I have produced by local radio stations.
  • The silence of media personnel and other social commentators on my contribution to Barbados’ current cultural renaissance.
  • The omission of any reference to my work among that of Barbadian artists who were featured on an edition of the Art Club, a television program produced by ARTV in London, and aired on CNN several times a week.
  • The omission of any reference to my work in the UNESCO/NCF sponsored “Country Cultural System, Profile: Barbados”, authored by Dr. Glenford D. Howe”.
  • The rescinding of an invitation to present copies of a poster I published (the “Bowler’s Psalm”) to the West Indies cricket team (I had previously presented the team with copies of my “Batsman’s Psalm”).
  • A “side-lining” and silencing I suffered after I was invited to participate in a popular local cricket discussion radio program, “Best and Mason”.
  • The rescinding of an invitation I received to perform some of my work at a local farewell function for a foreign diplomat.

These incidents and situations are just a sample of the “violence” to which I have been subjected as my conflict with The Liar and Barbados’ fundamentalist feminists has escalated and widened. I refer to it as violence because this is precisely what it is.

In her 1997 book When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence (New York: Viking, ISBN: 0-607-85925-7) Patricia Pearson highlights this kind of violence, known as “indirect aggression”. Indirect aggression, as noted by Stuart Birks of Massey University, New Zealand, in his review of Pearon’s book, has been defined by Finnish psychologist Kaj Bjorkqvist as “‘a kind of social manipulation: the aggressor manipulates others to attack the victim, or, by other means, makes use of the social structure in order to harm the target person, without being personally involved in the attack.'”

Pearson says girls develop the capacity for indirect aggression from very early. Distinguishing indirect aggression from the physical, direct violence commonly ascribed to men, she says,

“… as soon as girls hone their verbal and social skills, at around ten or eleven, they become aggressors of a different kind. They abandon physical aggression, even though their pre-pubescent hormones are still no different than boys’, and adopt a new set of tactics: they bully, they name call, they set up and frame fellow kids. They become masters of indirection.”

I believe an extraordinary example of such violence against myself and my organization (Intelek International) occurred in 1998 or so, when a function I had organized with a local government department was “hijacked” by The Liar, probably with the help of Market Guilt.

I had been in dialogue with members of a local NGO that was the immediate organizer of the event, and had arranged to have members of an organization with which The Liar and I were affiliated perform as part of their programme. On the evening for which the reading was scheduled, The Liar had commandeered the proceedings by the time I arrived. When I inquired with an official of the government department as to what had transpired, I was informed that The Liar had been identified as the leader of our organization, and therefore the person with whom the organizers of the event should do business. I had presumably been represented as an impostor, glory-grabber or other fraud.

Needless to say these and other indirect assaults by The Liar, Market Guilt and their fundamentalist feminist backers have taken and continue to take a tremendous toll on me physically, emotionally and financially. They impact negatively on my capacity to nurture and provide for my wife and daughter and participate to the optimum of my ability as a productive member of Barbados’ creative community.

Other prey and predators in Barbados’ fundamentalist feminist politics

Yet, I am not the only victim. I stated earlier that fundamentalist feminism is antifeminist at its core. I know of a number of female artists who have also suffered indirect aggression and have been similarly disadvantaged by local fundamentalist feminists. Theirs and other examples illustrate the opportunistic, unprincipled character of fundamentalist feminism. Like Christian and other forms of fundamentalism, it is a malleable ideological construct, lacking sound historical, factual grounding. This lack of authenticity makes it a widely adaptable tool that can be manipulated by males and females alike, to serve their selfish ends.

Many males have benefited from the entrenchment of fundamentalist feminism in Barbadian politics, the media and broader commerce including: publishers/publicists, cultural and political activists, poets and politicians.

Their examples are a chronicle of falsehood oriented, “unholy alliances” that demonstrate the extraordinarily adaptable character of fundamentalist feminism, for some who benefit now, it would appear, were at one time objects of considerable indirect and direct (at least verbally) aggression by local feminists. Of course, as an instance of political conflict, their examples would have to be weighed with due regard to their own exploitation of Barbados’ feminist and wider female lobby and vote.

The vagaries of fundamentalist feminism therefore do not manifest themselves with any kind of consistency or coherence. Its fruit are varied, and even contradictory because, again, of its lack of rootedness in reality – its lack of authenticity. This feature also accounts for the ease with which it can fuse with or fuel the agendas of other ideological systems, such as Christianity, Communism, Capitalism, Rastafarianism and Pan Africanism.

Fundamentalist feminism’s adaptation by males to purely personal ends, whims and fancies is probably best demonstrated by the examples of individuals in the publicity/publishing field, who are some of The Liar’s most committed supporters. Each has reaped personal benefits, though of different kinds, by either perpetuating The Liar’s exaggerated opinion of his contribution to Barbados’ current cultural renaissance or by shielding him from accountability for that exaggeration and related dubious deeds. One, a married man with whom she has been sharing an adulterous relationship for many years, is now the mother of The Liar’s child.

In the case of two others, the dividends have been particularly significant: they include support for the suggestion that a publication with which they and The Liar are associated was the critical catalyst behind Barbados’ current literary and broader cultural renaissance. Actually, responsibility for Barbados’ current cultural renaissance is so highly prized, that it has even attracted “claims” from Prime Minister Owen Arthur, who assumed his Government’s ministerial portfolio for culture in 2001.

The exploitation of the vagaries of fundamentalist feminism in the cultural and political arena by government and opposition actors in Barbados is particularly instructive. There is no question in this writer’s mind that the popularity that some government and opposition figures have enjoyed has in large measure been achieved by accommodations reached with some of this country’s most unprincipled fundamentalist feminists – women and men who are determined to assume positions of power in this country at any cost!

Personally, I shudder at what the implications of that alliance – which crosses political party lines – could mean for Barbadians.

At the very least, it could lead to the concealment (and/or corruption) of the Christocentric focus of the current cultural renaissance in this country. Communist, Pan Africanist and Rastafarian or Rastafari-sympathizing fundamentalist feminists in this country seem intent on erasing or obscuring any evidence of the Christocentric roots of this renaissance, especially as represented in my own work. The intention, it appears, is to claim the contemporary “revolution” in cultural consciousness for the more militant activists who have been labouring long for Barbados’ cultural liberation.

I do not object to the honouring of the years of cultural activism by persons like Elombe Mottley, the Mighty Gabby, Cynthia Wilson, Kamau Brathwaite or the younger Aja, Arturro Tappin and Market Guilt. I however object to the suggestion that these and other Communist, Socialist, Pan Africanist or Rastafarian oriented cultural and political activists were the principle or only catalysts of Barbados’ current cultural renaissance. Such a view marginalizes and minimizes the crucial reconciliation and syncretization of Christian and nationalist currents that myself and others (like the Reverends Harcourt Blackett, Dean Harold Crichlow, Canons Andrew Hatch and Noel Titus and Father Clement Paul) represent. It misrepresents the historical evolution that has led to the emergence of such fundamentalist and broader Christian cultural initiatives as the use of steel pan in churches, the Experience Christian Calypso Tent and the participation of fundamentalist church oriented groups like “Living Springs Dance Academy” in the National Independence Festival of Creative Arts (NIFCA).

I explore these issues more fully in another document I am currently preparing. There I look, among other things, at some of the schizophrenic analysis and outcomes of the cultural awakening currently sweeping Barbados. My main concern here though is the schizophrenic analysis and society fragmenting fruit of fundamentalist feminism.

A solution

The “battle of the sexes” is with us to stay. This is probably the oldest conflict known to man, and I see no logical reason to expect it to go away. Actually, I believe gender conflict is a quite basic, natural and potentially wholesome part of the process of human development. I believe it is a primary forum for the transmission of values such as honesty, patience, humility respect and tolerance; I believe that from childhood onward, gender differences play a key role in our development of conflict resolution skills.

The emergence of fundamentalist feminism, a perversion of the legitimate concerns of the feminism of the 19th and 20th centuries, stems from our perennial, repeated failure to manage this age-old conflict. At the deepest psychic and most distant historical level, it stems from humanity’s unhealthy, idealistic longing for and preoccupation with perfection.

In another discourse (“The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled”) I identify this longing as a key factor behind the intimidating and exploitation breeding perception of scripture that I call the “terror of the Bible”. I speak in that text of the “propensity of the human mind to seek to establish some infallible, unquestionable, unchanging authority around which we may order our perception of reality and regulate our conduct.”

In the context of fundamentalist feminism, this “authority” becomes feminity, as defined by fundamentalist feminists. For fundamentalist feminists, womanhood is the “inerrant and infallible” guide to truth – in more or less the same manner as “the Bible” is the “inerrant and infallible” guide to truth for fundamentalist Christians. In either case, what is needed is a more realistic, dynamic and, to that extent, authentic understanding of both authority and truth. (Let me say here that while useful and entertaining the treatment of “the sacred feminine” as a locus of power in Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”, probably does not facilitate this end as well as some might think).

In layman’s terms, no man or woman, is always right. No human being is perfect. No human system of government is perfect. A dynamic, difference and change respecting understanding of authority and truth takes into account the fallibility of all humanity and all human systems of control and government. Such an understanding leads us to value each other more, irrespective of gender, racial, religious or any other ideological differences: it emphasizes our interdependence.

In the domestic context, a dynamic, difference and change respecting understanding of authority and truth will help male and female partners share the leadership role, recognizing that this is a function more so, than an office. The “head of the household” model of home management, promoted by many churches and the Men’s Educational and Support Association of Barbados (MESA, of which I was the first Secretary) and other men’s organization is as defective as its fundamentalist feminist counterparts. Husbands and wives (or male and female partners) need to be tutored in a dynamic paradigm of leadership that emphasizes sharing of responsibilities in the context of agreed values and goals. These goal and values need to be viewed as the foundation upon which the home is built and the “head” that the homebuilders serve. The Principle-centred, value based teachings of leadership trainer Steven R. Covey point in the right direction.

Furthermore, the indispensable value of truth needs to be emphasized. Wholesome relationships between men and women cannot be attained in the absence of honesty – especially honesty with oneself. We need to be able to admit when we are wrong; we need to be able to face our failings if there is to be balance and harmony in our relationships with others.

Patricia Pearson’s book emphasizes the need to acknowledge unpleasant truths where they exist. In her chapter on women in prisons, she suggests we will not solve a problem if we deny its existence or its true nature. The fundamentalist feminist Lie-e-lah syndrome thrives on denial and self-deception.

While Pearson’s book concentrates on extreme violence, much of what she says can be adapted to refer to more common interaction. Much insight can be gained from shifting one’s perspective away from the prevailing paradigm which focuses on men’s shortcomings and looking at the role of both males and females in instigating and perpetuating violence – physical and psychological.

In an advertisement televised as part of the recent UNIFEM project, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the Sixteen Days of Activism Global Campaign, Barbadian calypsonian Allison Hinds expressed the desire – and right – of Caribbean women to express themselves without fear. The prevailing paradigm, with its roots and fruit in fundamentalist feminism, is itself intimidating. As Starcom network’s David Ellis suggested some time ago during an edition of Brass Tacks, any challenge of the prevailing paradigm is met with swift, sweeping claims of male insensitivity, bias, pettiness or worst (also recall parliamentarian Prescod’s views, shared in the introduction above). Pizzey’s and my own marginalization are also evidence of the treatment those who challenge this paradigm can expect – regardless of their gender.

I hope that the publication of this essay and the account here of my own, ongoing struggle against this paradigm serves as a source of encouragement to those who may feel that they are alone in their own struggles. I hope my own continued quest for “poetic justice” will serve as a source of inspiration and courage for men and women to speak out against the scourge of fundamentalist feminism. I will be happy to assist with the publication or dissemination of such stories in any way that I can. I can be reached at the following email address:

In the service of beauty and truth,

Junior campbell


March 5th, 2006


Guardian newspaper’s “creed greed” (Love Arctually – part 1)

A brief foreword

The article below was originally published on the England-based Wikinut citizen journalism website on October 25, 2015. I reproduce it here, now in compliance with the law of love (Galatians 5:14) and in the service of the most sublime “carnal knowledge” scripting.

J. Campbell

February 10, 2018



My dad as he appears in one 'Love Arctually' image.
My dad as he appears in one ‘Love Arctually’ image.


Today I’ll be doing my first public reading in several years.

The occasion is the inaugural Love Arctually production.

As explained below, Love Arctually is “rooted in my experience of the potential and limits of language – especially written representations of language.”

This article, the first in what I expect will be a long-running series, explains the rationale behind the project.

The article is substantially derived from an open letter I wrote to inform friends, family, business associates and other possibly interested parties about the project and to invite those who could do so to attend.

There is also additional text and a number of photos and other images created for the project.

The initial feedback I have had and other developments around the project, like a petition calling on the Guardian newspaper to “rein in” its reporting on the highly contentious reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery issue, also provide useful written and other material that I look forward to sharing here in due course.


First, an extract from the email I sent to my brother Wayne, my local MP Clive Lewis, retired Canadian diplomat Isaac Goodine and others, informing them of and inviting those of them who could to attend it.

Dear All

Thanks for the interest you have shown in the Intelek International Love Arctually project.

Your encouragement and engagement is critical to its success and means more than I can say. (And as you all know, I am not put at a loss for words easily!)

Below is a brief background to the project and a summary of what those of you who attend its first public “installment” on Sunday, October 25th, at 7:00 pm at the Costessey Center in Norwich can expect.



Love Arctually is rooted in my experience of the potential and limits of language – especially written representations of language. I come from a literacy-focused culture, much like England. In fact, Barbados has been called “Little England”.

Essentially, Love Arctually provides a platform for sharing and showcasing the power of literacy to liberate and limit our perceptions of reality.

The focus is on what I call “thought tints”: scales and shades of meaning in which our words are rooted and from which they derive authenticity, as they are incarnated or “fleshed out” in time and space.

It’s about conversations with ourselves (in our consciences) and the love and care we can express through a coherence and consistency of thought, word and deed.

It’s a forum for discussing language as “current” (electrical charge) and “currency” (credibility).

When was the last time you heard an electrifying speech?
To be continued…

Sir Hilary Beckles channeling Forbes Burnham’s blight and inciting Farrakhanesque violence – part 1


Beware my “brother” Hilary

Below is a copy of an email I sent to University of the West Indies (UWI) Chairman Sir Paul Altman on December 8th 2017.

A “small beginning” of what I hope evolves into a mutually respectful, relationship rehabilitating conversation between UWI and me, the email expresses my concerns about self destructive, social cohesion depreciating elements of Vice Chancellor Sir Hilary Beckles’ Pan Africanist pedagogy, especially his reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery rhetoric.

My email explains how since at least 2001, when Barbados controversially put slavery reparations on the United Nations agenda, at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance (WCAR), Sir Hilary has been consciously or unconsciously pushing a parasitic, simplistic and socially poisonous “good blacks vs evil whites” reparations narrative.

I turned to Sir Paul, a prominent Jewish Barbadian real estate entrepreneur because previous, more informal efforts to get my concerns addressed by approaching Sir Hilary himself, including through calls to his office at UWI’s Mona Campus in Jamaica, and through his colleagues Dr Alan Cobley, Dr Eudene Barriteau and others at UWI’s Barbados and Trinidad (St Augustine) campuses have so far proven ineffective.

Having not received a response from Sir Paul to-date, I am publishing my letter to him here in the spirit that the Guyanese politician Jesse Burnham published her 1964 pamphlet “Beware My Brother Forbes”, prophetically warning her compatriots of the grave threat she believed he posed to Guyana’s democratic prospects.

It seems clear to me that whatever their intentions, good or ill, professor Beckles, politician-lawyer David Comissiong, ethicist Anna Kasafi Perkins, education analysts Verene Sheperd and “Sista Docta” Sandra Richards, feminist activist Margaret Gill and others working for or close to UWI are channeling the worst of the now long deceased democracy degrading, even disemboweling, Guyanese dictator Forbes Burnham’s legacy.


(I will address the good that the sagacious Burnham did, in spite of his own and others’ limitations, in due course.)


And I am clear that by opposing Beckles’ ivory tower broadcasting of Burnham’s divisive spirit, I am risking a fate like Walter Rodney’s.

Rodney was the manipulative Marxist Burnham’s most prominent critic until he was assassinated, on Burnham’s instruction, allegedly, with British and American governmental complicity.

Like Maurice Bishop of Grenada, he was a Caribbean casualty of the Cold War conflict.

Moreover, having suffered a degree of character assassination and commercial sabotage at the hands of Aaron “Buddy” Larrier and other Beckles spiritual allies or thought twins in 2001, in the lead-up to and following the WCAR, I am also mindful of Beckle’s links to the volatile, violence rationalizing Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrkhan.

Indeed, Farrakhan’s divisive denunciation in 2014 of Kofi Anan, Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma and others as “Uncle Toms”, “sell outs”, and “collaborators” on the basis of the bellicose Beckles’ interpretation of their conduct during WCAR 2001, is chillingly reminiscent of how Larrier, Comissiong, Rastafarian academic Ikael Tafari and others attacked me in 2001 ahead of the WCAR because of my insistence that the role of Africans as traders in the slave trade, not just tradees needed to be adequately addressed in our pre-conference deliberations.

Moreover, readers should note that in a 1993 speech the characteristically tantrum tongued, hot headed, Farrakhan defiantly asserted the NOI’s right to “deal with traitors and cutthroats and turncoats” as they saw fit.

Note too that at that time the fiery tongued, black people homogenizing Farrakhan was defiantly responding to decades old allegations that the NOI was responsible for the assassination of Malcolm Little, better known as Malcolm X, but most respectfully, arguably, as Malcolm Shabazz.

And I note “Shabazz’s name changes here because they document a spiritual journey that the secular, mainstream, popular media seems to have done much to devalue and distort, consciously or unconsciously.

There certainly seems to be a tendency for some human ecology misreading, word-to-flesh mismanaging editorial entities, like BBC Norfolk’s Mike Liggins, to treat Rodneyesque and Shabazz-like rebels the way Elijah Muhammed apparently treated his once highly prized, most prominent disciple: that is, like privately owned property to be disposed of as the NOI supremo saw fit.

It certainly seems that Muhammed, with Farrakhan’s acquiescence, and some say a CIA wink, treated Malcolm like a slave, really, when you think of it.

Like Liggins, who called me a “crank”, Charmaine “Nailah Imojah” Gill who called me a liar and failure, and others who project their Burnhamesque, binary and bi-polar labels onto my and others social capital and wider intellectual property proprietorially, Muhammed apparently presumed to dictate Shabazz’s narrative: to self-servingly stereotype and define his former disciple’s story.

Unsurprising then that two days before he was murdered, Malcolm, having freed himself of Muhammad’s 12 years of ideological domination, described his former devotion to the NOI as inducing a kind of brain death.

Shabazz said he had been hypnotized by the NOI and made a zombie.

Of course, while valid to some degree, this assessment should be taken with a pinch of salt as it ignores Shabazz’s personal responsibility for what he believed.

This blame-shifting capacity is part of the attraction of the race demonizing, “wicked white people” and “bestial blacks” gospels that race racketeers like Beckles, Burnham, Farrakhan, Nigel Farrage, VS Naipaul, Surinder Kandola, Robert Mugabe, Steve Bannon, Kelly-Ann Conway, Reverends Sally Muggereidge and Joanne Farman propagate consciously and unconsciously.

I fear a similar personal responsibility side-stepping, bow-to-Beckles-compelling zombification is happening at UWI.

University of Warwick lecturer Michael Nibblett and Jamaican religious history authority Doreen Morrison can attest to this on the basis of comments made by Dr Aaron Kamuguisha, a high profile UWI academic, when I challenged his ideological bowing to Becklesque, Burnham-recalling racial bigotry during a talk he delivered at UoW in 2016.

And a note of caution to those apparently infatuated by British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn may be beneficial here, given the openly threatening and otherwise intimidating tactics that Corbyn’s Thomas-Mair-like, Militant friends and supporters are alleged to have repeatedly been engaging in.



Certainly, like Burnham and his socialist ideology preaching, then state-capture-and-state-capitalism practicing adherents, some of Corbyn’s and his comrade and militant founder John Lansman’s Caribbean Black nationalist counterparts tend to treat rebellious “Rodneys” like me that challenge their authority like wild animals that need to be destroyed or at least discredited.

As I noted in an article addressing the counter-productively politicized, bi-polar, “binary notation” of the fundamentalist feminist activist Gill, our compatriot writer George Lamming alluded to this proprietorial state-based, human potential wasting politically motivated destruction in 2015, treating it as the defining trait of Caribbean political party traditions.

He said “It is my view that the political party, as it operates, is the source of public corruption. It is the source of a waste of human capital. It is the major obstacle to any rational and serious debate about politics.”

Intriguingly, the prominent Barbadian thinker Lamming, best known for his novel “In The Castle Of My Skin”, offered this assessment during the 5th annual Assembly Of Caribbean People, held at UWI Cave Hill.

From my vantage point, under Sir Hilary’s Vice Chancellorship, all of UWI but especially Cave Hill, where he served as principal for a number of years, is at risk of becoming a Burnham blight transmitting, Farrakhanesque flame-thrower rhetoric replicating factory.

More on that in part 2 of this discourse, by which time I hope to have heard from Sir Paul and can report that my concerns about UWI’s future are being taken seriously.

In the meantime, readers may want to consider signing a petition I published on January 25 to support this and related Caribbean reparations rhetoric rehabilitating goals.


My letter to Sir Paul Altman

Dear Sir Paul Altman

My name is Junior (Jay) Campbell and I am an England-based Barbadian holistic communications and education specialist, trading as Intelek International.

Under the Intelek label I pursue a variety of personal development and social cohesion building activities.

And where possible I work with various public and private sector and similarly ostensibly opposing interests (for example, Christians and Muslims) to build the kind of value consensus that Barbadian sociologist Richard Carter has identified as one of our country’s most urgent needs.

Typically, following Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s, Mahatma Ghandi’s and other peaceful protester’s example, I do this by emphasizing principles of interdependence and the consequent need for programs of action rooted in systems that facilitate mutual respect and accountability.

It is in this regard that I have been prompted to contact you, in your capacity as Chairman of the Council of the University of the West Indies’ Cave Hill Campus.

I am deeply concerned about the “divide and rule” course of Cave Hill’s and the wider UWI body’s pedagogy.

This mind poisoning pedagogy is being propagated by Vice Chancellor professor Sir Hillary Beckles, Dr Sandra Richards, lecturers Margaret Gill and other UWI personnel, consciously or unconsciously.

I am particularly concerned about Sir Hilary’s, Gill’s and Richards’ deeply divisive, shallowly scholastic and fundamentally undemocratic, capricious and dictatorial reparations advocacy.

In 2001, as a consultant to the Barbados Government Commission for Pan African Affairs, I worked with politician David Comissiong, Rastafarian community leader Iral Jabari Talma, trade unionist Ricky Parris and other Afrocentric human rights advocates who with professor Beckles led Barbados’ “successful” (I use the term advisedly) 2001 bid to have reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery put on the United Nations agenda.

Then and since, I have been astounded at the capacity of professor Beckles and other leaders of Barbados’ reparations lobby to dismiss or trivialize the issue of Africans’ and African-descended Barbadians complicity in the trans-Atlantic trade as slave traders and owners.

From my perspective, this reduces Barbadian reparations advocacy to a kind of opportunistic, race racketeering demagoguery and undermines Barbadians’ capacity to engage with the very emotive, volatile issues around past, present and future race relations in our country constructively.

From my perspective, Beckles, Comissiong, Vincentian prime minister Keith Mitchell, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and other Caribbean, American, British, Canadian and other reparations advocates are not so much knowledge workers as political propagandists.

Their reparations advocacy is characterized by a dangerous deficiency of self criticism, rooted in a consciously or unconsciously cowardly commitment to discreditable self interest.

From my perspective, Beckles’ “success” at garnering Mitchell’s, other Caribbean, American, British and Canadian political and academic leaders’ support for his short-sighted, radically retrogressive, scholastically anemic and intellectually malnourished, “obese English” reparations bid is more indebted to systemic weaknesses in Barbados’ and these country’s governance systems than any thing else.

I can attest first hand to the failure of Barbados’ politically compromised and morally adrift media establishment to hold Sir Hilary, Comissiong, Dr Sandra Richards and other fundamentalist feminist and Marxist opportunist reparations advocates accountable for defects in their one-sided, reverse racist values consensus undermining reparations reasoning.

The complicity of Rev Gerald Seale, Rev Harcourt Blackett and other Barbadian, American and other clerics through arguably well-intended but characteristically “ecclesiastical”, indulgent and excessive interventions must also to be noted and lamented.

Like the media these and other cleric’s and lay people’s contributions to the debate have often consisted of ethically flawed, generalization and stereo-type based ideas.

What is needed, at least, is a more mathematical, radical scrutinizing and weighing of African descended Caribbean slave traders and owners motives.

For example, the questionable personal and political concessions made by Toussaint Louverture, Nanny of the Maroons, Marcus Garvey, Bob Marley and other well meaning but nonetheless fallible Caribbean freedom fighters need to be examined with equal amounts of objectivity and empathy.

I note that each of these leaders at least attempted to use authority earned through revolutionary rhetoric and/or struggle to negotiate accommodations that ultimately replaced one set of dictators with another.

CLR James identified the essential dynamic behind this race glossed phenomenon in the context of the Russian revolution, denouncing it as “state capitalism”.

Such penetrative analysis seems sadly missing in the reparations discourse that Sir Hilary propagates.

What is happening instead, essentially, is that scientific analysis and argumentation are being sacrificed on the altar of political, racial and religious sentimentality: cults of personality and opportunism have been pushing principled, historically grounded argumentation to the periphery of the reparations debate.

And I cannot over-stress the extremely harmful part being played by unprincipled, short-sighted elements in Barbados’ mainstream news media and their co-conspirators in international news and publishing interests, especially some academic publishers.

The West-Indian-politician-Westminster-choir-boy ploys and trickery that Barbadian calypsonian Anthony “Mighty Gabby” Carter deplores in one of his well-known songs are being taken up by Beckles and others whose scholastic authority and power to persuade derive not so much from the content of their arguments as from their proximity to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale UCLA and other British, American and similar “first world” educational institutions.

(And I have copied Harvard University’s Laird Bell professor of History Sven Beckert into this email and would welcome his thoughts on that point.)

But like the widely discredited but defiant British academic, Professor Dame Glynis Breakwell, professor Beckles and other reparations crusaders seem to be exploiting weaknesses in international education systems of accountability and transparency.

Yet even as the foundations of predominantly secular segments of the international academic fraternity are being shaken by seismic shifts in thinking in medicine (especially in the field of mental health), Beckles’ beloved economics and other social sciences, Beckles, Gill, Comissiong, Richards and others seem to be mechanically regurgitating fundamentals of discredited, divisive, shallowly socialist, essentially “state capitalist” Marxist ideas.

And I believe that like the Donald Trump presidency, a patent product and propagator of “fake news” reaction to the gay marriage “faith ruse” excesses and other anomalies of Barack Obama’s presidency, the consequences of binary, divisive thinking about reparations for the Barbados economy and society are apparent already.

Professor Beckles’ and his fundamentalist feminist and other allies’ combative, one-sided reparations propagandizing is sowing seeds of distrust and paranoia, undermining what little values consensus the sociologist Carter and others may have documented.

Buttressed by the malicious, mischievous machinations of Aaron Larrier, Richards and others who have consciously or unconsciously cultivated a deep antipathy for white people through misfortunes they have suffered as minorities during their sojourns in England and other predominantly white countries, Beckles like the “new negroe” Bussa before him and whom he immoderately champions, is pouring contempt on centuries of quiet, diplomatic, peaceful conflict resolution methodologies and traditions that Errol Barrow, Tom Adams and other more circumspect Barbadians have developed.

I have even heard the ideologically imbecilic suggestion by one UWI Cave Hill acolyte, that Bussa should replace Barrow as Barbados’ putative “Father of Independence”.

Arrogantly discarding biblical and other anciently attested peace building, social cohesion advancing methodologies (like Egyptian Ma’at and South African Ubuntu traditions, to which they nonetheless occasionally pay lip service) the robotic reasoning, shallowly “radical” reparations revolutionaries dispense with the unique, geo-politically crafted, temporally and spatially measured and mediated “truth-to-power-speaking” techniques that have been dictated by Barbados 166 square mile topography, as much as by anything else.

Disdaining of the “cool headed”, morally measured, conflict management and resolution skills that are Barbadians’ distinctive heritage, as Mariano Brown and other Caribbean politicians and business people have noted, the gender, race and religious racketeers that shield Beckles, Gill, Richards and others from rigorous academic and moral scrutiny are selling Barbados down the river as surely as some of our African ancestors did, and some of our African, African American and Black British contemporaries routinely do today.

Our youth are being tutored in coarse and volatile political agitation that seems more characteristic of Jamaican, Trinidadian, Guyanese and other lesser developed, more temporally and spatially challenged realms of democratic discourse, doctrine and practice.

I am asking your help to address this deeply regrettable democracy destroying trend.

It is an abuse of the Barbadian and wider Caribbean tax paying public’s contribution to the development of UWI and our other formal and informal educational institutions over successive generations.

I have tried to recruit professor Allan Cobley and other UWI personnel without success.

Similar approaches to the Inter American Commission On Human Rights, the Commonwealth Secretariat, mainstream and other news entities, like the supposedly progressive Barbados Underground blog have been sabotaged by the machinations of Comissiong, Larrier, Gill, Richards and the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Karen Mckenzie, originally of Jamaica.

I have had some success though in getting Donville Inniss and other Barbadian politicians and business people who have been undermining my work to rethink their unethical, human rights violating objectives and strategies.

And an initial conversation with Prime Minister Freundel Stuart during a visit to Barbados in October 2018 has led me to think that ill-conceived efforts to have me declared persona non grata, mainly because of my questioning of fundamentalist Christian and other excesses (documented in my book “The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled”) have been abandoned.

I have a sense that the most formidable obstacles to the good that I can do for Barbados as a peace maker have been overcome and I am keen to build on this foundation.

Moreover, I have been speaking to many Barbadians at home and abroad who share my perspective.

However, as conversations with prominent Cave Hill academics (including one who spoke in the presence of two English colleagues during a visit to England) have made clear, many of professor Beckles’ colleagues are intimidated by him and his international academic and political connections.

The aforementioned visiting academic spoke of the need to ensure that he could continue to pay his mortgage.

And I am told that the suppression of criticism of Sir Hilary at the Mona Campus in Jamaica is at a particularly perilous stage.

I suspect that the impunity implied by the outcome of the trial of his son Rodney Beckles on that island for the alleged murder of Jamaican Khalil Campbell has had a chilling, demoralizing effect on many potential whistle blowers.

For my own part, having been labelled “a spy” and otherwise attacked by rabid reparationist Aaron “Buddy” Larrier, the late Dr Ikael Tafari and others, I am not without sympathy for those who have been silenced.

Having seen the kind of blame and flame throwing rage and other hot head, bullet blunt irrational behavior Sir Hilary’s mouth has triggered in the likes of Louis Farrakhan and others, far be it from me to call those who find silence in the face of his divide and rule offensives cowards.

But notwithstanding the hardships I have suffered at the hands of other people, especially as a result of what former prime minister Sir Lloyd Erskine Sandiford has called “academic politics” I fear only God, Sir Paul and commit my and my family’s welfare to his care.

Still, any advice you can offer on how I can get professor Beckles and other UWI personnel who have previously viewed me as a threat to their interests to work with me on a less demagogic, more democratic, measured and conciliatory reparations discourse (giving due attention to proactive, self reparation strategies particularly) would be deeply appreciated.

If it helps to view this letter as a formal complaint to the UWI Council you chair, please accept it in that context and capacity and advise me what additional steps I can take to ensure that the menace Beckles poses to himself and others is addressed appropriately.

In closing, I want to assure you that I have made no secret of my concerns about Sir Hilary’s, Comissiong’s and others’ questionable arguments and methods.

From 2001 until now, I have denounced them openly, as the article extract copied below and the full article at the link accompanying it makes clear.

I have also sought to demonstrate empathy, the very thing that I believe can facilitate consensus around reparations and similarly fraught gender, race and religion charged debates.

Despite Comissiong’s, Beckles’, Gill’s and others’ apparent complicity in the aforementioned or alluded to campaign of character assassination and economic sabotage that I have survived, I have forgiven and bear no ill will toward them.

But I cannot stand quietly by while Sir Hilary undermines the very liberty he would champion.

“Slavery was not just a system of holding people in bondage, it was holding people in bondage for a purpose, and that was to make money, to make money off of their bodies, and that’s the important realization that Americans have to come to,” said Professor Annette Gordon-Reed, speaking after a talk by Sir Hilary at Harvard.

But thanks to the selective silence and/or incompetence of journalists Kaymar Jordan, Olutolye Waldron, Julius Gittens, Harold Hoyte, Al Gilkes, David Ellis, Anthony Blackman and others, Beckles is basically allowed to treat UWI like his own slave plantation.

This and similar interventions are motivated as much by my sense of duty to the thus “enslaved” people of Barbados and the Caribbean as by concerns for my own and my family’s welfare.

I see little difference between the mind control manipulations of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the intellectual property plundering, knowledge trading machinations employed by Sir Hilary, Rupert Murdoch and some other knowledge industry owners and workers today.

Sadly, I see much of the same “body of information” snatching behavior being perpetrated by social media Goliaths Google, Facebook and Twitter, with the conscious or unconscious connivance and complicity of some members of Britain’s National Union of Journalists (of which I am a member).

And I actually feel sorry for professor Beckles and company much of the time.

As a member of Barbados’ Jewish community you may be familiar with the phrase “banality of evil”, coined by Hannah Arendt in her book covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann.

Basically, I believe professor Beckles and company have a lot in common with Eichmann and the Nazi regime that both braced and butchered (metaphorically) his heart and mind.

Their reparations advocacy, falls ominously within Arendt’s description of Eichmann, especially her belief that his inability to think for himself was exemplified by his consistent use of “stock phrases and self-invented clichés”.

According to Wikipedia, Arendt claims “The man demonstrated his unrealistic worldview and crippling lack of communication skills through reliance on ‘officialese’ (Amtssprache) and the euphemistic Sprachregelung that made implementation of Hitler’s policies ‘somehow palatable.'”

In at least one of the articles on my blog I may have compared Eichmann’s incarnation of “the banality of evil” with Beckles’ (and Trump’s, possibly) peculiar Caribbean incarnation of the “bananity of evil”.

I am also inclined to compare their demagoguery with the “bigly” gambling of Trump, Google founder Sergey Brin and the “fear and loathing in Las Vegas” channeling mass murderer Stephen Paddock.

Arendt’s references to Eichmann’s “stock phrases” actually recalls the “bump stock”, mechanical modification that the reputedly imperious, controlling Paddock used to maximize the killing potential of his weapons.

It also recalls the “roller coaster of emotion” manipulating pressure tactics used by the now discredited Trump University, according to court materials, among them sales playbooks, describing a technique that was used to persuade students to pay for courses costing as much as $35,000 for that real estate business training institution’s “Gold Elite” program.

As both my book “The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled” and my Linguistics thesis on glossolalia (glock-solalia?) indicates, I have been engaged in a study of such “fear and loathing” cognitively and affectively fossilized and fossilizing communication phenomena for some time.

Conversation analysis specialist Dr Elizabeth Stokoe of Loughborough University, copied in here with other secular and religious education stakeholders, can also attest to this.

She knows as well as anyone of my concern that “intelligence” derived from interrogation or any other conversational encounter should be historically rounded and grounded. That it should be authentic.

Please help me save UWI and Barbadian and Caribbean educational achievement from association with counterfeit, immoral, unethical Trump University approximating machinations.

Yours sincerely
Junior (Jay) Campbell
Intelek International
Link to article cited

Blessing and blight of Sir Hilary Beckles’ scholarship – Mouth of The Beast #11

Extract from article cited
Indeed, I think it is safe to say that based on what has gone before in this series of articles, it should be clear that while I remain a committed Pan Africanist like Beckles and Comissiong, I am a radical Pan Humanist first.

It should be clear that while I see some validity in the notion of ‘whiteness’ being normative, in many Western formal and informal educational and socializing contexts, as recently argued by another Williams-like apologist, black American academic Reggie Williams, I do not subscribe to the view that “whiteness” is normative in every scenario.

In article six I recounted a Twitter exchange I had with Williams, where I challenged that racist assumption at the heart of an article entitled “Seeing whiteness”, that the Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics at McCormick Theological Seminary had published in the Christian Post.

As Mottley, leader of the Barbados Labour Party and others have noted, while it is self-evident that “whiteness” is normative in some scenarios, especially in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and Europe where white people’s numerical majority as reflected in their domination of mainstream media and academia is still significant, it is not unchallenged.

The veil of whiteness over Western society’s vision and values is rather more porous than Williams imagines.

His vision, apparently shared by Beckles and others whose scholarship seems fundamentally compromised by a neurotic negativity or ‘inadequacy syndrome’ is in fact marred by the kind of generalization or ‘bigly’ thinking that Trump and other gender, race and religious racketeers and demagogues trade on.

A persistent advocate of the wisdom of small beginnings, I subject all ‘big ideas’ to rigorous scrutiny: not least my own ‘macro economic’ notions.

So, my persistent WCAR-related questioning in 2001 of Barbadian Pan Africanists’ decision not to discuss the involvement of black people in the trans-Atlantic slave trade as traders, rather than just as slaves or slave descendants was a matter of conviction and principle.

Back then, as we prepared for that UN conference, which was hosted by South Africa, I felt that this fraught question of black-on-black abuse and violence is critical to any discussion of reparations.

My insistence that this vexing issue should be frankly discussed by Beckles, Mottley, the former Barbados Government Commission For Pan Affairs Director Comissiong and other government and NGO affiliated persons involved with me in conferences, dialogues and other preparatory activities linked to the WCAR was therefore not personal – certainly not in the petty, base sense of that word.

It was in fact an assertion of my own and other moderate black Barbadian thinkers’ personhood: the personhood of the majority of Barbadians, who choose middle-of-the-road positions not just on trans-Atlantic slavery reparations, but on a range of issues as a matter of course.

Moreover, I was asserting the personhood that every race racketeering extremist,
paedophile priest, political con artist, plagiarizing academic and selectively silent journalist attacks not just in their victims, but in themselves, ultimately.
It was an expression of my and their freedom of conscience: our right to see things differently; to disagree.
It was, in fact, an expression of my human rights, including the right to imagine or believe what I choose to imagine or believe.
My right to be me.
Again, these are precisely the kinds of human rights that Beckles and other Pan Africanists were asserting even as they harassed, undermined, intimidated and threatened me, directly and indirectly.





Web-spinning ‘Spiderman’ Cameron’s progressive policing – Englands unknown police #5

This article is one in a series published when I was an anchor with Allvoices-Pulse Point.

This series documents difficulties I have been experiencing working with England’s official and unofficial (“citizen”) police to address short and long-term threats to my and others’ business interests, health and security.

I address militant Islamic terrorism and other forms of unlawful violence, especially psychological violence and other kinds of indirect aggression perpetrated by Western and other secretive state organs like the CIA, Mossad and the KGB.

I decided to reproduce this 5th installment of that series here (as I did on the Wikinut platform on September 19, 2014) as part of a group of “conversations” and programs of constructive engagement I am pursuing with the social media giants Google and Twitter, my local MP Clive Lewis and a number of artists, academics, medical practitioners, bankers, trade unionists, journalists and other contributors to Britain’s and Barbados’ “knowledge economy”.

Still, despite the wide sweep of issues these conversations embrace, references in this particular article to Rastafarian and reggae music legend Bob Marley are extraordinarily serendipitous and surprising to me.

That’s because these references coincide with online, extended conversations I have been having over the last 12 days with Jason Toynbee, Karl Watson and Ray Gurney in which the “informative” Marley features prominently.

With Toynbee, a former Open University lecturer and the author of Bob Marley: Herald of a Postcolonial World?,  I have been discussing progressive and regressive (or degenerative and regenerative) aspects of Marley’s “natural mysticism”.

I contacted Toynbee seeking  insight into the truth of a claim by Marley’s one-time manager Don Taylor that the peace preaching reggae icon had executed “ghetto justice” on the man who led the 1976 gun attack on his home.

Sadly, this kind of fear and force focused “policing” is well-known to Jamaicans and other Caribbean people.

Barbadian historian Karl Watson has been sharing details of an encounter he had with Marley in Barbados in the 1950s, when they were both teenagers.

Ray Gurney, an architect and business associate (with wife Janice “life of the party” Gurney) was recently inspired by Marley’s song “One Love” to create a family film he had first thought of some years ago.

Marley’s well-known love of football, probably one of the genetic legacies of his white English father Norval that Marley himself, his mother Cedella, wife Rita and other Afrocentric guardians of Marley mythology have policed repressively speaks to me voluminously.

As does the socially seismic disqualification of Italy for the select group of nations that will compete in the 2018 World Cup battle for soccer supremacy.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, a key “police state” like, Judeo-Christian heritage preserving entity that I have been seeking to engage with constructively about its role in the aforementioned “short and long-term threats to my and others’ business interests, health and security” may have some idea of what that Italian tragedy means to me and other “unknown police”.

 Readers familiar with my geological and geopsychic phenomena tracking core beliefs will appreciate why I view the August 24, 2016 and January 18, 2017 earthquakes similarly.
I also note, with a sense of urgency, the devastation wrought by the December 28, 1908 Messina earthquake, as we approach the 59th anniversary of that tsunami-linked stumping of the “toe” of the beautiful game proud boot that is Italy.
The 900 year interval between the 2017 earthquake and its January 3 predecessor of 1117 that disquieted Verona is also suggestive of a cyclical, degenerative and regenerative dimension to the divine justice I serve and seek.
War wounds and winning tactics


“If we can succeed in inventing means of changing their attitudes and beliefs, we shall find ourselves in possession of measures which, if wisely used, may be employed in freeing ourselves from their attitudes and beliefs in other fields which have greatly contributed to the instability of our period by their propensity for holding up progress.”

D Cameron

It would be easy to attribute the statement above to British Prime Minister David Cameron, given his recent call for “muscular” promotion of British values to fight efforts by militant Islamists to subvert England’s progressive, liberal education system, through the so-called “Trojan Horse” strategy.

It would also be incorrect.

The title of this article and the “D Cameron” attribution that follows the opening quote are parts of a deliberate, Cristiano Ronaldo recalling journalistic body shift, employed by this writer to get readers to question and rethink what they think they know – much like I questioned the identity of Detective Inspector Rob Sterling of City of London Police, in the first article in this (England’s unknown police) series.

In a manner marginally comparable with the aggressive, excessive electroshock ‘therapy’ employed by pioneering psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, the actual author of the quoted statement, I am attempting to ‘depattern’ the reader, gently erasing presumed attitudes and beliefs and ‘inputting’ preferred thoughts.

Strategically imitating (more like metamimicking) much of the modern media’s manipulative ‘information management’, which serves select interests – like Dr Cameron and the other scientists, military personnel and politicians who collaborated with him on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) MKULTRA mind control program – my Lionel Messi-emulating goal is to present an intensive critique of not just former journalist and political web spinner prime minister Cameron’s news management praxis, but a critique of the entire ‘knowledge industry’.

Like Luis Suarez, I’m striking against the inflated defences of both secular and religious education papier mache Mephistopheles.

But in contradistinction to Suarez, I don’t think I’ve bitten off more than I can chew.

As those familiar with my work with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP, Barbados) in the late 1990’s, the Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions (2013, University of Illinois) and my on-going efforts to reform global fast food powerhouse Domino’s Pizza will know, I’ve been breaching the dogmatic defences of secular and religious knowledge soldiers and systems for several years now.

I’m particularly keen to explore the intersection of predominantly secular Western news media interests and the interests of the predominantly religious, non-Western communities that are typically the subject of academic international development theorizing – the kind of analysis that at least one University of East Anglia development studies course is dedicated to and that Oxfam’s Senior Strategy Advisor Duncan Green offered in a 2012 article.

Actually, a substitution of the word ‘Jihad’ for ‘struggle’ in Green’s article demonstrates the kind of journalistic depatterning that I am going for here. It gives fresh legs to my cause.

One hope is that the psychological shaking or cognitive shifting I achieve by such ‘thought substitution’ may provide a model or stimulus for the kind of critical thinking, open mindedness and even pessimistic questioning that might dislodge the bureaucratic blind faith or official optimism and complacency that was cited as a key factor behind the scandalous Daniel Pelka tragedy.

And the geographical coincidence of the Pelka tragedy and Trojan Horse affair, both based in the English Midlands, is not lost on my metaphysical instincts. My hope is to make the implications of such coincidences explicit.

In this article, as in others I have published here, including some outside this series, I’m capitalizing on a number of geographical, historical and other coincidences around the names “Cameron”, “Campbell” and “Thompson”, for example, as Anansi-like, I spin a web of transient deception, to demonstrate the counter intuitive notion that the more things change, the more they reveal unchanging truths and realities.

Another goal is to challenge linear Western notions of developmental or progressive change, which are notorious for understating or else completely ignoring the circular, mimetic character of change as experienced by time and space bound, socio-biologically sourced humanity.

It is such novelty chasing, typically anti-religious Western concepts of development that Al Queda, Boko Haram, El Shabab, Islamic State In Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and some of their militant Rastafarian and other Afrocentric Caribbean counterparts oppose, fundamentally.

So here and subsequently, I’ll be comparing and conflating the academic ambitions and experiences of current University of East Anglia development studies staffers and students like John McNagh, Emil Dauncey, Sophie Helle, Le’Roi Adolphus, Rosanne Tromp and others, with the experiences and legacies of Dr Cameron, Emil Durkeim, Robert K Merton, Sylvia Plath, Sir Hilary Beckles, Viola Davis, Esther Philips, Margaret Gill and other father and mother figures and ancestors of academic inquiry.

As before I’ll also be drawing on interactions with journalists, visual artists and other creative industry organizations and personalities, including sketch artist Toni Hayden (England), dance groups Acrojou (England) and Forklift Danceworks (USA), singer-songwriters Anna Mudeka (Zimbabwe-England), Alicia Saldenha (Japan-Trinidad) and Edwin Yearwood and John King (Barbados).

As to be expected of what is essentially a media critique though, the direct and indirect contributions of journalists like Mike Liggins of the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC’s) Norfolk outlet and Eric Smith, David Ellis and Kaymar Jordan of Barbados’ media will feature prominently.

Like the mesmerizingly meandering yet direct and driven Argentinian striker Messi, I’m executing a deceptive, direction changing yet maintaining ‘fakie’, temporarily misdirecting and wrong footing the reader, on occasion, as I pursue the historian’s highest goal: to reconcile the parts that each individual person and event contributes to the whole narrative of human existence and creativity.

From this literary set piece, assisted by the direct and indirect wing-man role-playing contributions of ‘team mates’ like Dauncey and Helle, for example, I am hoping to replicate something of the grace and beauty that Messi achieved when he scored his second World Cup goal of June 25th (fourth of the tournament), as his side battled Nigeria, ancestral cradle of the wily spider Anansi.

I’m conflating ‘beautiful game’ battles being fought today on Brazil’s 2014 World Cup fields of play, with the terrorizing, tragic legacies of the two Western World Wars, fought mainly in European theatres, with contemporary ideological disputes and divisions that all of us have a duty to monitor and police, though not always muscularly.

I am also firmly following-through on an undertaking given in the previous article in this series to give detailed attention to the politics of the deeply conflicted musical and religious icon Bob Marley .

I will be exploring not only the psychosomatic, rough or “rude bwoy” character of Marley’s tragic demise, but also his prima donna, Diego Maradonna approximating low “center of gravity”.

The psychiatric ‘apostle’ Cameron’s statement, taken from his paper The Social Reorganization of Germany, offers insights into the socio-psychological fall-out of the two World Wars’ devastating cultural explosions particularly.

Cameron (1907 – 1967) was an enigmatic, Scottish-born, Presbyterian raised, American acculturated, prominent yet “obscure” pioneer of Western professional and professorial psychiatric theory and practice.

And Islamic Jihad was not the focus of this prominent pioneer of psychiatry, who according to Wikipedia’s main article “served as President of the Canadian, American and World Psychiatric Associations, the American Psychopathological Association and the Society of Biological Psychiatry during the 1950s”.

His paper is not referring to the attitudes and beliefs of United Kingdom-based Muslims.
A profoundly “shell-shocked”, psychological semi-survivor of World Wars I and II, apparently, Professor Cameron was referring to the German people, whom he had come to view as archetypal representatives of ultraconservative, overly aggressive humanity.

Germans were to him what the “blue-eyed devil” white man is to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, presumably.

They were the “Pope Paul” and “Babylon” of the fundamentalist Rastafarian worldview of my deceased Rastafarian compatriot Dr Ikael Tafari and the Reggae icon Marley – in his most militant, arguably self-alienated moments, at least.

Wikipedia’s principle article on Dr Cameron – which readers should note may be accused of glossing over human rights abuses he perpetrated in the service of the CIA, incidentally – tells us that in 1945, he, Nolan D.C. Lewis and Paul L. Schroeder, colonel and psychiatrist, University College of Illinois, were invited to the Nuremberg Trials for a psychiatric evaluation of Adolf Hitler’s second in command Rudolf Hess.

But before his arrival in Nuremberg, Cameron seems to have already arrived at some astoundingly bigoted, settled, imagination-starved and ungracious views of Germans, which he recorded in his paper.

“Cameron argued that German culture and its individual citizens would have to be transformed and reorganized. In his analysis, German culture was made up of people who had the need for status, worshiped strict order and regimentation, desired authoritarian leadership and had a deeply ingrained fear of other countries,” says Wikipedia, citing his paper.

It continues “The paper stated that German culture and its people would have offspring bound to become a threat to world peace in 30 years. To prevent this, the West would have to take measures to reorganize German society”

But what “people” (nation, tribe or tongue) has not at some time, in some circumstance, in some measure, been “made up of people who had the need for status, worshiped strict order and regimentation, desired authoritarian leadership and had a deeply ingrained fear of other countries”?

Is that not a description of the classic, morally and politically conservative, Talibank Thinking temperament that can be found within all national borders?

Is it not, moreover, the kind of psychosocial profile that one might expect of large segments of all Western nations’ citizens around the turn of the twentieth century, as they struggled frantically to stabilize their “attitudes and beliefs” following the seismic shakings of the Christian Reformation, the French Revolution, industrialization, and the consolidation of scientific (so-called) secularism?

What people – African, Indian, Chinese, European or any other classification – is above the Nazi, fascist nationalism that England, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and other European nations flirted with but which found its most simultaneously triumphant and tragic expression as it overtook Germany?

What objective justification did Dr Cameron have for thus stereotyping an entire country?

I’m inclined to think very little, if any, ultimately.

But beyond the self-asserted, arguably arrogant empiricist Cameron’s breath-taking bigotry, what stands out most shockingly is the Presbyterian professor’s extraordinary imitation of the very reactionary, retrogressive brutality that he denounced the German people for.

I believe this “own goal” like crisis of identity is the critical lesson that the no doubt well-meaning attitudes and beliefs policing yet perverse, probably criminal cruelty perpetuating professor Cameron can teach all of us – and not least, his prime ministerial “twin” David Cameron, strapped as he is with first-among-equals, father-like governmental responsibility.

The example of the scientist Cameron’s contradictory “war on terror” strategy should arouse the would-be hero PM Cameron’s “spider sense”, reminding him, Home Secretary Theresa “aunt” May and other UK attitudes-and-beliefs-policing authorities that if not properly managed, muscular moves to protect national security may violate not only principles of international solidarity but also the dictates of domestic human rights principles and policies.

Defending their goal of a progressive, culturally integrated, peaceful and prosperous Britain, the English prime minister and his parliamentary colleagues, would want like United States defender Geoff Cameron to avoid anything resembling the own-goal with which Brazilian defender Marcelo Vieira opened the goal-scoring of World Cup 2014.

They would not want to repeat the error of Ghanaian defender John Boye, a Spiderman whose muscular legging aided his side’s defeat and Portugal’s victory.

Graduate student Dauncey “a qualitative researcher undertaking a PhD in the School of International Development Studies” at the UEA could offer a useful metamimetic or semiotic analysis of Boye’s error, conceivably, as his research “focuses on the lives of young men living in an urban, Muslim enclave in Accra, Ghana”.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Dauncey’s broad research interest “is in how these young men make sense of themselves and the worlds that they inhabit.”

He writes “I examine how young men experience and (re)produce a world in which the local and global, consumer and producer are not easily disentangled. Drawing on my own field research I explore the understandings of identity and self that are at stake for young men through diverse forms of consumption and (re)production and the social relationships that frame them.”

“Courtship and marriage, work and leisure, shopping, dress and keep-fit are just a few of the practices and experiences examined. I argue that such practices are not merely economic necessities, but embodied self-making practices grounded in gendered relations of power,” he says.

Dauncey is also interested in the critical analysis of qualitative research methods, in particular focus groups and is currently investigating focus group methodologies and how the data they produce might be better situated and interpreted, by academics like himself, presumably.

Pursuing my own metamimetic analysis of the UEA’s, McGill University’s, the University of the West Indies and other academic institutions‘ ‘shadow worlds’, I am interested in how Dr Cameron, Dr McNagh, Dauncey, Helle, Trompe, I and other academics experience and (re)produce a world in which the local and global knowledge consumer and producer are not easily disentangled.

Drawing on my own “field research” (which, relative to my UEA “focus group”, is so far comprised mainly of introductory conversations and correspondence with McNagh, Dauncey and others) I too am exploring the understandings of identity and self that are at stake for young and old, male and female academics and other thinkers “through diverse forms of consumption and (re)production and the social relationships that frame them.”

Moreover, like the American Merton, “a tall, pipe-smoking scholar”, who “often used the trajectory of his life story, from slum to academic achievement, as material illustrating the workings of serendipity, chance and coincidence, which so long fascinated him,” I, an average height, non-smoking Barbadian thinker am using the trajectory of my own story of Derek Walcott-like dramatization of the creative use of schizophrenia in Caribbean writing, music and other fields as material illustrating the workings of serendipity, chance and coincidence which continue to fascinate me (the book by that title was first to published by my organization, Intelek International).

And lets not discount what I share with PM Cameron, which sadly includes the tainting that he and other British Parliamentarians share through their association with the press pedophilia of recently convicted former News of the World editor Andy Coulson and the late Liberal politician Sir Cyril Smith, whose liberal, progressive British values apparently led him to justify his homosexual and other serial sexual abuses of minors.

In the next article in this series, I will be exploring evidence of links between Cyril Smith, an alleged powerful pedophile ring operating in the British Parliament and similar ‘informal’ pedophile media and political collectives linked to MKULTRA operating in the United States, India, Pakistan, Guyana, Jamaica and my native Barbados.

I can only hope that not only DI Stirling of City of London Police but also his Norfolk Constabulary colleague, DC Trevor Tutt, with whom I shared the name of a possible pedophile embedded in one of Barbados’ top educational institutions, will give due consideration to this information.

As far as I am concerned, you don’t have to be psychic or spiritual to see the connections.

Relatively little investigative journalistic or policing curiosity – the kind that saved Tory MP Andrew Mitchell from an extraordinary media-police miscarriage of justice, apparently – is all that is required.


Dr Ewen Cameron – scientific patron saint or predatory secularist?

The psychiatric ‘apostle’ Cameron’s statement, taken from his paper The Social Reorganization of Germany, offers insights into the socio-psychological fall-out of the two World Wars’ devastating cultural explosions, particularly.

Cameron (1907 – 1967) was an enigmatic, Scottish-born, Presbyterian raised, American acculturated, prominent yet “obscure” pioneer of Western professional and professorial psychiatric theory and practice.

And Islamic Jihad was not the focus of this prominent pioneer of psychiatry, who according to Wikipedia’s main article “served as President of the Canadian, American and World Psychiatric Associations, the American Psychopathological Association and the Society of Biological Psychiatry during the 1950s”. His paper is not referring to the attitudes and beliefs of United Kingdom-based Muslims.

A profoundly “shell-shocked”, psychological semi-survivor of World Wars I and II, apparently, Professor Cameron was referring to the German people, whom he had come to view as archetypal representatives of ultraconservative, overly aggressive humanity.

Germans were to him what the “blue-eyed devil” white man is to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

They were the “Pope Paul” and “Babylon” of the fundamentalist Rastafarian worldview of my deceased Rastafarian compatriot Dr Ikael Tafari and the Reggae icon Marley – in his most militant moments, at least.

Wikipedia’s principle article on Dr Cameron – which readers should note may be accused of glossing over human rights abuses he perpetrated in the service of the CIA, incidentally – tells us that in 1945, he, Nolan D.C. Lewis and Paul L. Schroeder, colonel and psychiatrist, University College of Illinois, were invited to the Nuremberg Trials for a psychiatric evaluation of Adolf Hitler ’s second in command Rudolph Hess.

But before his arrival in Nuremberg, Cameron seems to have already arrived at some astoundingly bigoted, settled, imagination-starved views of Germans, which he recorded in his paper.

“Cameron argued that German culture and its individual citizens would have to be transformed and reorganized. In his analysis, German culture was made up of people who had the need for status, worshiped strict order and regimentation, desired authoritarian leadership and had a deeply ingrained fear of other countries,” says Wikipedia, citing that paper.

It continues “The paper stated that German culture and its people would have offspring bound to become a threat to world peace in 30 years. To prevent this, the West would have to take measures to reorganize German society”

But what “people” (nation, tribe or tongue) has not at some time, in some circumstance, in some measure, been “made up of people who had the need for status, worshiped strict order and regimentation, desired authoritarian leadership and had a deeply ingrained fear of other countries”?

Is that not a description of the classic, morally and politically conservative, Talibank Thinking temperament that can be found within all national borders?

Is it not, moreover, the kind of psychosocial profile that one might expect of large segments of all Western nations’ citizens around the turn of the twentieth century, as they struggled frantically to stabilize their “attitudes and beliefs” following the seismic shakings of the Christian Reformation, the French Revolution, industrialization, and the consolidation of scientific (so-called) secularism?

What people – African, Indian, Chinese, European or any other classification – is above the Nazi, fascist nationalism that England, France and Italy flirted with but which found its most simultaneously triumphant and tragic expression as it overtook Germany?

What objective justification did Dr Cameron have for thus stereotyping an entire country?

I’m inclined to think very little, if any, ultimately.

But beyond the self-asserted, arguably arrogant empiricist Cameron’s breath-taking bigotry, what stands out most shockingly is the Presbyterian professor’s extraordinary imitation of the very reactionary, retrogressive brutality that he denounced the German people for.

I believe this “own goal” like crisis of identity is the critical lesson that the no doubt well-meaning attitudes and beliefs policing yet perverse, probably criminal cruelty perpetuating professor Cameron can teach all of us – and not least, his prime ministerial “twin” David Cameron, strapped as he is with first-among-equals, father-like governmental responsibility.

The example of the scientist Cameron’s contradictory “war on terror” strategy should arouse the would-be hero PM Cameron’s “spider sense”, reminding him, Home Secretary Theresa “aunt” May and other UK attitudes-and-beliefs-policing authorities that if not properly managed, muscular moves to protect national security may violate not only principles of international solidarity but also the dictates of domestic human rights principles and policies.

Defending their goal of a progressive, culturally integrated, peaceful and prosperous Britain, the English prime minister and his parliamentary colleagues, would want like United States defender Geoff Cameron to avoid anything resembling the own-goal with which Brazilian defender Marcelo Vieira opened the goal-scoring of World Cup 2014.

They would not want to repeat the error of Ghanaian defender John Boye, a Spiderman whose muscular legging aided his side’s defeat and Portugal’s victory.

Dancing with Dauncey, dramatist Derek Walcott and other detectives

Graduate student Dauncey “a qualitative researcher undertaking a PhD in the School of International Development Studies” at the UEA could offer a useful metamimetic or semiotic analysis of Boye’s error, conceivably, as his research “focuses on the lives of young men living in an urban, Muslim enclave in Accra, Ghana”.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Dauncey’s broad research interest “is in how these young men make sense of themselves and the worlds that they inhabit.”

He writes “I examine how young men experience and (re)produce a world in which the local and global, consumer and producer are not easily disentangled. Drawing on my own field research I explore the understandings of identity and self that are at stake for young men through diverse forms of consumption and (re)production and the social relationships that frame them.”

“Courtship and marriage, work and leisure, shopping, dress and keep-fit are just a few of the practices and experiences examined. I argue that such practices are not merely economic necessities, but embodied self-making practices grounded in gendered relations of power,” he says.

Dauncey is also interested in the critical analysis of qualitative research methods, in particular focus groups and is currently investigating focus group methodologies and how the data they produce might be better situated and interpreted, by academics like himself, presumably.

Pursuing my own metamimetic analysis of the UEA’s, McGill University’s, the University of the West Indies and other academic institutions‘ ‘shadow worlds’, I am interested in how Dr Cameron, Dr McNagh, Dauncey, Helle, Trompe, I and other academics experience and (re)produce a world in which the local and global knowledge consumer and producer are not easily disentangled.

Drawing on my own “field research” (which, relative to my UEA “focus group”, is so far comprised mainly of introductory conversations and correspondence with McNagh, Dauncey and others) I am exploring the understandings of identity and self that are at stake for young and old, male and female academics and other thinkers “through diverse forms of consumption and (re)production and the social relationships that frame them.

Moreover, like the American Merton, “a tall, pipe-smoking scholar”, who “often used the trajectory of his life story, from slum to academic achievement, as material illustrating the workings of serendipity, chance and coincidence, which so long fascinated him,” I, an average height, non-smoking Barbadian thinker am using the trajectory of my own story of Derek Walcott-like dramatization of the creative use of schizophrenia in Caribbean writing, music and other fields as material illustrating the workings of serendipity, chance and coincidence which continue to fascinate me.

And lets not discount what I share with PM Cameron, which sadly includes the tainting that he and other British Parliamentarians share through their association with the press paedophilia of recently convicted former News of the World editor Andy Coulson and the late Liberal politician Sir Cyril Smith, whose liberal, progressive British values apparently led him to justify his homosexual and other serial sexual abuses of minors.

In the next article in this series, I will be exploring evidence of links between Cyril Smith, an alleged powerful paedophile ring operating in the British Parliament and similar ‘informal’ paedophile media and political collectives linked to MKULTRA operating in the United States, India, Pakistan, Guyana, Jamaica and my native Barbados.

I can only hope that not only DI Stirling of City of London Police but also his Norfolk Constabulary colleague, DC Trevor Tutt, with whom I shared the name of a possible paedophile embedded in one of Barbados’ top educational institutions, will give due consideration to this information.

As far as I am concerned, you don’t have to be psychic or spiritual to see the connections.

Relatively little investigative journalistic or policing curiosity – the kind that saved Tory MP Andrew Mitchell from an extraordinary media-police miscarriage of justice – is all that is required.


“In the Name of Science” by Andrew Goliszek

Trump’s bipolar Bajan ‘head teachers’ (Heady black and white nationalist alliances – part 1)


The F-AcT of Publishing ‘bigly’

It will help to begin this title shifting, cloistered, oracular 14th installment of my Mouth Of the Beast series of articles with a word of thanks to Ann Fenton, Managing Editor of the American news blog The Latest.

The submersion of the MOTB brand under the black and white nationalist title in this instance is both an assertion of my relatively absolute power over my writing and a subtle rebuke to Ms Fenton.

An apparent stickler for compliance with the Associated Press’ Style Guide, the mainstream news journalist’s Bible, Ms Fenton can be thought of as a hyper vigilant, arguably anal retentive head teacher or press pope.

She might be considered a compulsively ordered editor, afflicted with an edited, literary version of the racial anxieties behind Donald Trump’s, Steve Bannon’s, VS Naipaul’s, professor Sir Hilary Beckles’, Louis Farrakhan’s and other black and white nationalists’ and similar social separatists’ insistence on ethnic and color coded clarity.

And I do not suggest this as a slur against Fenton because like her and other writers, including The Latest publisher Jeffrey Hall, almost certainly, I too have ‘black and white’ publishing anxieties.

We're all drowning in floods of information...?
We’re all drowning in floods of information…?

Indeed, I empathize with Fenton precisely on the basis of my own neurotic and phlegmatic publishing struggles, especially my own seemingly interminable challenges of learning and unlearning the subjectivity of words.

I identify with the AP’s Jill Lawless and the BBC’s Mike Liggins and other BBC journalists similarly.

And as a corrupt corporate culture challenging petition I have started suggests, I am keen to help the BBC reform itself internally.

I want to help Liggins, Wendy Witham, Garry Standly and others free themselves from the duplicity and double-mindedness that excessive corporate conformity can make normative or normalize.

On a similar basis, I empathize with and, if I could, would “radicalize” Barbadian poet and formidable feminist and trade union activist Margaret Gill who is featured in the above video.
A virtual embodiment of the literary fault lines along Barbados’ gender, racial and religious divides, Gill was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1987.

But that is an official record or “publication” that Gill, a founder member with me of Voices: Barbados Writers’ Collective, is rightly refusing to be defined by.

And consistent with my work with others promoting reform in mental health diagnosis and treatment, I support Gill in that public assertion.

But Gill, with whom I was once involved intimately, risks being defined by a psychosis of another kind: a sociopath-like, public image obsessed twisting of the heart and mind.
Weighed in the balance by the omniscient umpire who presides over the cosmos’ collective wickets, the longstanding Democratic Labour Party member Gill risks being branded a player of a deeply malformed, malicious and corrupt cricket.

Like former England cricket team captain Nassar Hussain’s now clearly premature analysis of the West Indies team’s performance in their second test match against England at Headingly, Gill, a poet of considerable pedigree risks being exposed as a Pharisee: a performer whose words are empty.
That is because like Trump, Hilary Clinton, Dr Ben Carson, Kellyanne Conway, her UWI colleagues professor Beckles and ‘sista’ Dr Sandra Richards and other conscious or unconscious gender, race and religion racketeering manipulators and bullies, Gill is at risk of being defined by her contribution to the long-running, Barbados-sown, globally grown campaign of character assassination and related human rights violations that has been undermining my work, my health and my family life for more than a quarter of a century.
And let me assert again here, as I have done previously, that campaign is not harming me only.

As I have indicated in an open letter to the Queen of England, to whom Barbadian parliamentarians owe a particular moral and constitutional duty, that cowardly campaign is undermining freedom of the press and other critical cornerstones of Barbados’, England’s, America’s, Canada’s and related democracies.

But the good news, the gospel truth, if you will, is that it is in Gill’s power to redress the risks to her reputation as a person of integrity proactively.

And what a tragedy it would be if the following decree of CS Lewis, describing essentially self-alienated, self-righteous leaders is ultimately, definitively said of this truly gifted Barbadian woman.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

It is this tyrannical delusion of righteousness that makes Gill, Beckles, Carson, Farrakhan and other black leaders conscious or unwitting allies of beast-like Trump’s truth trampling, tyrannical work.

The convergence of white and black nationalists’ bipolar political, hollowly heady, excessively high minded impulses is both rooted in and leads to miscalculation of their own and misappropriation of others’ social capital.

This creates power vacuums among their respective constituents, resulting in social equivalents of the destruction that hurricane Harvey represents.

Or as I indicated in a number of recent tweets it causes #TrumpicalDepressions.

The delusions of manic depressives like Gill always tend to create deluges of one kind or another.

The embarrassingly public mental health crisis that the radically race conscious rap artiste Kanye West suffered following his endorsement of Trump may be a case in point.

Thesis I tweeted linking Trump's heated racial rhetoric to hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Jose.
Thesis I tweeted linking Trump’s heated racial rhetoric to hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Jose.


I will get to the particulars of Gill’s ongoing betrayal of the beautiful bond that she and I initiated in Barbados in due curse.

For now it will suffice to say that hers seem to mostly be sins of silence.

Her crimes, and I do mean crimes, seem mostly to be a matter of secretive, conspiratorial subversion.

And in the same way that the cosmic reason why the literary umpire Fenton rejected an earlier, 700 word version of this article is something of a mystery to me, so too Gill’s perverse persistence with a cynical Naipaul and Surinder Kandola recalling secrecy about abuses she, I and numerous others have suffered at the hands of Barbados’ gender, race, religion, class and otherwise deeply divisive, tribal political culture remains something of a puzzle.

But for now, back to Fenton.

I empathize with the difficulties of her editorial role, which essentially obliges her to police not just the words but also the motives of others.

Indeed I grapple with the limited control I have over what even the words I create, write or speak, can mean, let alone the words of others!

The heart can be such a shady, obscure, erogenous zone (Jeremiah 17:9).

“Schnart Art”, an Intelek Domino Effect Associates (IDEAs) project that I have embarked on with a number of emerging citizen journalists and ‘seers’, including visual artists Deborah Liversage, entrepreneur ‘oracle’ Janice Lear-Gurney and her architect husband Ray, demonstrates the cyclic or perennial challenges around human language-knowledge consumption and production patterns that I struggle with daily.

Consistent with the fundamental, geopsychic phenomena measuring, early warning aims of this KoreBelief blog, of which it is a ‘by-product’, SchnartArt proceeds not only from the obscurity of the oracle Gurney, but also engages with seismic significations of the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse, profoundly.

I certainly view the hurricane Harvey triggered tragic deaths and destruction in Texas as a kind of semantic saturation, catalyzed perhaps by Trump’s hot wind rhetoric engaging with an extremely cold, frigid, fundamentalist Christian front.

I also hold Trump’s, Bannon’s, Farrakhan’s, Carson’s and others’ heat generating, at times blood chilling rhetoric responsible, at least indirectly, for the ongoing destruction of hurricane Irma and the emerging threat of Jose.
And to be clear, this is not just a meteorological metaphor.



It is also an empirical assessment that derives fundamentally from a time and space generated, linguistic labels transcending rehabilitation of the medieval notion of “humors”.

Accordingly, as I recently indicated to Barbadian cleric Reverend Sonia Hinds, I am inclined to see some causal or at least contingent connections between the Texas flooding and real property rich Trump’s moral famine risking political correctness destroying obsession.
I believe these destructive weather systems may be reasonably viewed as God’s or the cosmos’ way of cleansing America and its Caribbean neighbors (especially proud Jamaica, where Beckles is currently based) of their excessive, racial pride rooted delusions.

From that point of view, these violent weather phenomena may be viewed as cleansing winds, sent to prompt a review of well-meaning but misguided or short-sighted, maliciously and materially motivated decisions.

Trump’s immediate White House predecessor Barack Obama’s simplistic, short-sighted support for gay marriage, apparently ignoring 2000 years of Christian marriage manipulation and perversion by various shadowy micro and macro economic interests, would fall into the former category of Mike the headless chicken misreads.

I suppose I can sympathize with Obama, a constitutional lawyer by training.

I can see why he and other legal minds might think the letter of the law could fix the fundamentally social, complex challenges that marriage, whether gay or straight, monogamous or polygamous presents.
But I see the destructive hurricanes as a cosmological indictment on the real property rich magnate Trump’s condition as an ethical and intellectual property thin, moral dunce more readily than I see it as an Obama or Clinton conceit remedy.

My primary concern though is that these and other natural disasters might be read more prospectively and respectfully by the people of the Caribbean.

I suggest we think of them as colonic cleansers removing post-colonial psychic impurities from the Caribbean body politic’s system.

And from my creole linguistics informed perspective, the balance of probability clearly favors such an analysis, however tentatively offered.

I certainly stand by the validity of this theistic proposition, irrespective of British historian Niall Ferguson’s and other atheist or atheistic, secular historians’ indifference to the intersection of ethics and ecology in spoken, written or otherwise published words.
I single out Ferguson here because in the September 4, 2017 broadcast of BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend he defended Trump’s supposed PC redressing verbal aggression.

As I noted in a post in the National Union of Journalist’s Facebook group, Ferguson seems to have a peculiarly unscientific understanding of the power of the 45th US president’s brazen Twitter and other public pronouncements.

I wrote: “His criticism of the media for focusing on Donald Trump’s tweeting is not without merit but deeply concerning nonetheless… surely a historian of Niall Ferguson’s standing should have some inkling of the potency of the public comments of a US president.”

Even if he isn’t familiar with the idea of a ‘speech act’ as formulated in the discipline of Linguistics, a scientific study of language, I opined, Ferguson, a seasoned broadcaster and the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University should know something about the power of words.
He should be aware of the power of words to escalate or deescalate tense, potentially violent situations.

A student of distinguished American diplomat Henry Kissinger apparently, Ferguson should be aware of the concept of “constructive ambiguity”.

But he seems to have little grasp of the workings of language beyond some rudely agglutinated or hurried together, self-contradicting understanding of the coherence that may exist in and across pragmatics and related linguistic fields, such as semantics, syntax, phonetics, phonology and morphology.

Which brings me again to the seemingly PC hyper sensitive editor Fenton.

She seems to have little awareness of the relative obesity of the English language and how this makes a nonsense of Style Guide and other notions of clarity, at least potentially.

Like Ferguson’s ethically shallow assessment of Trump’s tactless diplomacy, Fenton’s editorial stewardship toward me might be described as a Hussainesque misreading of a cricket test match by reliance on the the temporal and spatial constraints of T20 memories.

Reviewing and ultimately rejecting the earlier version of this article that I had submitted to The Latest, Fenton ignored my stated intention to present my ideas in a series of articles rather than a single 700 word, one-off instalment.

She also took particular issue with my use of the word “mistress”, despite my effort to explain the unique, gender transcending “entailment, implicature, semantic and pragmatic” properties that distinguish my use of that word in this instance.

Fenton apparently reasoned that even my use of quotation marks to signal my peculiar, idiosyncratic use of the word made no difference.

But by binning my article, basically, Fenton triggered a sense of longing for the short-lived literary liberties that I enjoyed while working as an anchor with the then more relaxed, Style Guide-challenging, citizen journalist publisher Allvoices-Pulse Point.

She therefore triggered a happy memory even as she helped me appreciate the extent to which both traditional print and cutting edge digital media entities can be virtually imprisoned by and perpetuate the binary or bipolar gender, racial, religious and other stereotypes that ‘divide and rule’ demagogues like Trump, Beckles and Farrakhan trade on.


Donald Trump, 45th United States President (Wikipedia)
Donald Trump, 45th United States President (Wikipedia)

Her insistence on my conformity to the Style Guide’s dictates on journalistic ‘clarity’, a perfectly reasonable, legitimate insistence in many ways, therefore shifted my attention from Gill’s, Beckles’ Carson’s, Richards’, Farrakhan’s and other Black and Minority Ethnic community leaders’ conscious or unconscious support of Trump’s agenda to the systemic nature of the media industry’s tendency to package and ‘compartmentalize’ information and, intentionally or unintentionally, perpetuate bipolar, black-versus-white and other bigotry enabling ‘branding’ and stereotyping.

Fenton demonstrated what we might call the petrifying or heart and head hardening propensity of the money and otherwise materially motivated publishing industry.
She dramatized, pragmatically, the printed word’s tendency to facilitate mental frigidity, fossilization and compartmentalization.
Particularly through a tendency to force writers to make binary or bipolar word choices, the publishing industry tends to limit those writers’ and their readers’ capacity to think holistically.

Fenton, Hall, Ferguson, Katharine Viner, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, David Thomson, Paul Dacre, professor Beckles, Richard Dawkins and other publishing industry and wider knowledge trading ‘priests’, ‘priestesses’ and similarly ‘ordained’ worshipers of ‘Style Guide gods’ force us to choose between words like “secular or religious” and “black or white”, for example.
Yet it is apparent that at its worst, demonstrated both by PC trampling Trump and some of his hyper sensitive detractors, this tendency of the written word can be a catalyst for or ally in the binary, bipolar thinking that was behind the tragic killing of human rights advocate Heather Heyer, during an eruption of racial tensions over a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
As readers may recall, the 32 year-old Heyer was killed by James Fields Jr, a white nationalist (or should that be whites rights activist?) who in a now routinely used terror strategy drove a car into a group of protesters that included Heyer.
She was killed an 19 other protesters were injured.

That arguably sensory rather than sense less vehicular slaying of Heyer by the 20 year-old Fields was a dramatic demonstration of the 2 Corinthians 3:6 New Testament warning about written things that I have cited repeatedly in this MOTB series: “the letter killeth”.
This spirituality restricting, cognitively corrosive capacity of the written word, which finds a peculiar contemporary expression in Trump’s and others’ politically polarized tweeting, tends to be overlooked by written news publishers and knowledge traders everywhere.
Secular and religious publishers seem equally indifferent to the capacity of written word based black and white clarity to kill.
And although the lethalness of the letter is a central theme in my book The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled, I tend not to dwell on it myself.
How could I and maintain any sense of self respect as a post modernist scribe in the mold of Cheikh Anta Diop and Jacques Derrida?
So I am grateful to Fenton for prompting me to reflect at length on how what I in one poem call “the illiteracy of Christ” is relevant to Trump’s and other divide and rule demagogues’ programs of publishing ‘bigly’.

I am indebted to her for reminding me that despite the efforts of those like Ferguson who might deny a causal or contingent link between Trump’s aggressive rhetoric and the racial tensions now undermining black and white Americans’ efforts to coexist peacefully, his word, and that of other supposed “white slight redressing”, PC pulverizing pragmatists became flesh in the Heyer tragedy.

Fenton’s challenge has ultimately deepened my conviction that while the pen may be mightier than the sword, it is also, potentially, as impotent.

She has strengthened my belief that like the car driven by the hot head Fields, the 26 characters of the alphabet are mere machines, ultimately.

Their meaning and utility derive from the consciousness of the writer-driver.

And some writers, like Scotland’s ‘Bin Lorry Bin Ladin’ career driver Harry Clarke are clearly less conscious and conscientious than others.

Now, should Fenton be considered not only a ‘bookish theoric’ but in fact a binary thinking, bipolar person herself?

Probably not in the strict, medical sense of the word.

I know very little of Fenton beyond what is indicated by the few emails we have exchanged.

And I hope that she has never suffered the misfortune of a deeply stigmatizing bipolar disorder or similar mental illness diagnosis, as these tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies.


Gill a ‘bookish theoric’?
Which brings me back to the woman featured in the joint Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and World Health Organization produced video accompanying this article: Ms Gill.

As she admits in the PAHO/WHO video, Gill was diagnosed with bipolar disorder by Barbados’ secular science based medical establishment in 1987.

That clearly was not an easy admission for the proud poet Gill, as her facial expression, especially a seemingly anxious, Fentonesque shifting of her eyes to someone positioned to the left (her right) of the recording camera suggests.

Gill, the winner of the inaugural Frank Collymore Literary Endowment Award, the most prestigious on the island is clearly aware of her reputational, publishing vulnerability.

She knew full well the risk she was taking as she chose to stand up and be counted among people “breaking the silence and the stigma around depression”, as the video states, with black and white clarity, literally.

And again, for this conscious risk-taking I will salute the emotionally fragile yet self-affirming poet Gill’s courage endlessly.

However, I can only offer her a restrained, largely optimistic, emotionally edited salute at this stage, because Gill does not seem as aware as she could be of the fallibility or selectivity of her Kandolaesque memory.

I say this because in February, 2017 Gill said that she loathes me because I ‘outed’ her as a mental health sufferer, rather than letting her publish that information herself.

Emphasizing that it is not her way to hate anybody, Gill, the mother to an adult son, told me that she was making an exception to that rule just for me.

So it appears that Gill believes that she has arrived at her loathing of me rationally.

There certainly was a vehemence and determination in her voice as Trump-like, she executed this venomous, violent speech act: “Ya see you Junior Campbell, I loooooathe you!” she said, stressing the vowel of that verb for impact.

I believe the ‘outing’ that Gill is accusing me of occurred in an Allvoices article I published in 2012, ventilating my concerns about her conscious or unconscious role in the long-running campaign of character assassination and other ‘brand bashing’ human rights violations.
Yet if I recall correctly, I published that since binned but soon to be re-published article some time after Gill had already “published” the bands of her bipolarity, if I may use that ecclesiastical marriage announcing analogy.
Put with Fentonesque simplicity, in 2012 I believed I was free to mention Gill’s mental health struggles publicly because she had already done so by then.

As I recall, she had told me that her courageous, mental health stigma challenging public declaration had come about during a conference of some kind, possibly held at the former Sherbourne Conference Centre (now called the Lloyd Erskine Sandiford Centre).

So, it may well be that the long-time Democratic Labour Party member Gill’s decision to loathe me is based on a failure of memory.

And I say ‘may well be’ because I am mindful of a rather darker, more depressing possibility.


Given our capacity as human beings for self-deception, it may be the case that Gill remembers that she had outed herself as a mental health sufferer but is seeking to conceal that fact in a bid to discredit me, as her DLP colleague Donville Inniss and others dancing along Barbados’ political divides have been doing since the 1990s.

That is to say, Gill may be casting herself as a victim, basically, in order to justify her, her UWI colleagues Beckles’, Richards’ and other fundamentalist feminists’ and black separatists’ efforts to portray me as a villainous, or (and perhaps more professionally damaging) a well meaning but incompetent person.

Much as it saddens me, I am obliged to consider the possibility that Gill has given herself wholly to the political machinations and related public relations deceit that blight all levels of Barbadian communication and social relations.

And it seems to me that Barbadians’ pride in our longstanding but rather optimistic 98% literacy assessment only exacerbates this dilemma.

Gill’s bipolarity, a personal challenge, is in fact correlated by the similarly separatist, socially divisive party politics that Barbadian writer George Lamming has identified as a pernicious destroyer of Barbadian dreams and talent.

The prominent Barbadian thinker, best known for his novel In The Castle Of My Skin, offered this assessment during the 5th annual Assembly Of Caribbean People, held at UWI’s Barbados-based Cave Hill Campus in 2015.

Here are Lamming’s words as reported by a local newspaper:

“It is my view that the political party, as it operates, is the source of public corruption. It is the source of a waste of human capital. It is the major obstacle to any rational and serious debate about politics.”

The basic argument of this essay is that by behaving like the anxious editor Fenton, who again, I empathize with, Gill, Beckles, Richards and other Barbadian black nationalist thinkers are advancing the deeply divided and divisive president Trump’s and other white nationalists’ short-sighted agendas, consciously or unconsciously.

I am contending that this unintended consequence of their actions is a perpetual risk not just in spite of their literary and other academic accomplishments, but to some extent because of them.

Again, as the biblical writer put it “the letter kills”.

And I readily concede that my own written words can have a lethal impact.

So contrary to Fenton’s apparent assumption, it is not my intention to denigrate or humiliate Gill or anyone else.

I am simply suggesting that Barbadians are particularly susceptible to the unintended forgetfulness or deliberate dishonesty that Gill demonstrates because of the mental and moral fog that our country’s literacy linked, color coded political party opportunism and tribalism generates.
This is why Voices, the writer’s group that Gill, Nailah Imojah, Umbali Imojah, Mark McWatt, Joy Workman and I founded became such an attractive object of conquest or, as former Barbadian prime minister Owen Arthur once suggested, in a reference to Barbados’ cultural industries overall, a source of political capital.
I believe Lamming, a Marxist analyst who has impressed this writer by his willingness to acknowledge the limitations of Marxist analysis would caution against or even denounce that kind of proprietorial or territorial political speculation.

The Trinidadian thinker and cricket officianado CLR James did the same, incidentally, penetratingly labeling the USSR a ‘state capitalist’ venture.
Due partly, perhaps, to the victimization that he suffered under the mercurial Trinidadian leader Eric Williams’ regime, James too was aware of how the schizophrenic disconnect between Caribbean politicians’ and political activists’ socialist preaching and their capitalist practice could make them ‘mistresses’ of Trump-like racketeers and tricksters.

The crux of the problem, as articulated on one occasion by the late Barbadian trade union activist Ricky ‘Babu’ Parris, under whom I served as the Treasurer of the Pan Africanist Movement of Barbados, is a failure of polarized black and white nationalists to appreciate the value of being at least as self-critical as one is inclined to indulge in self-praise.
Ottis Gibson, the former Barbadian coach of the England cricket team spoke of a related challenge in a press conference held on September 5, 2017 at Lord’s Cricket Ground, ahead of the 3rd and decisive Investec test match between England and the West Indies.

More on that in my next article, to be published modestly here.


Black and white signs and wonders

Like Fenton’s questionable, simplistic, possibly corporate interests driven insistence on clarity, Gill’s loathing of me appears to be the consequence of a defective conscience: a deficiency of self-awareness, as our fellow poet Parris might say from the grave.

More pointedly, given that she had already gone public with her mental illness history, I am inclined to believe that Gill loathes me for some perceived offence or group of offences that she is either unwilling or unable to concede.

The perceived injury that Gill refuses to forgive me could be the fact that it was I, not her, who ended our relationship.

Or, and I think this is more likely, the fact that I married a white woman.

It seems to me that this racist territoriality is something that Gill shares with Trump, Farrakhan, Beckles, Richards and other nationalists and separatists.
A similarly compelling possibility is that Gill is angry with me for publishing details of her betrayal of the DLP.

As I have published previously, she did that when she asked me to do some ‘indirect’ canvassing for Reginald Farley, the rival Barbados Labour Party candidate, in the 1994 general election campaign.

I suppose it is easier to blame me than it is to blame herself, Robert Morris or another of her die hard DLP comrades for the militant tendencies or excessively strict, potentially violent or otherwise human-rights-infringing ‘labour discipline’ that made her feel obliged to conceal her support for a BLP candidate.

And I have no doubt some Barbadians would say that I should blame myself at least partly for accepting that BLP ‘mess of pottage’ despite having been raised in a DLP household from my childhood days.

But I reasoned, as I believe Gill did, that never having joined the DLP I was better placed than her or another person officially tied to that party to canvass for Farley.

And I believe she stressed the indirect character of that Farley promoting tactic which was conducted by means of an ostensibly independent house-to-house survey of voter opinion.

In other words, I felt that despite my loyalty to the DLP (which I incarnated with a vote for then party leader and my local representative Sir Lloyd Erskine Sandiford in the same general election) I could indirectly support Farley with a clear conscience.

I certainly did not think I was selling my democratic birth right or otherwise surrendering my rights as a Barbadian citizen to freedom of association.

I did not and do not believe that my interactions with Gill or any other Barbadian activist, politician, party or any other political entity anulls my entitlement to the freedom of conscience and other human rights that my slave and free Barbadian ancestors fought and laboured for.

Does the fact that my father canvassed for the late Sir Richard Haynes give the DLP proprietorial or territorial interests in Jeffrey Campbell’s children?
Does the labour expended by my father for Barbados’ trade union movement, in the hotel industry, as a hifi player or as a sign painter with the Ministry of Transport and Works entitle any of his shop steward or other union colleagues to a proprietorial or territorial interest in me?

If so, they should tell me how.



In an as yet unpublished poetic precursor to this narrative, I consider the possibility that somehow, through the neural networks of her tortured, bipolar soul, Gill’s professed loathing of me may be fuelled by a fragmentary love.

I write:
“And love and hate can be confused so easily in the market place: buyer’s remorse with the marketer’s guilt.
Ask Prime Minister Theresa May, media magnate Karen Blackett or that game Grand Master Reverend Sally Muggeridge.
You play your own word games with a considerable mastery.
You certainly gave that venomous verb dramatic, extended emphasis during our brief, long-distance conversation, this past February.
Oh! If words spoken in 0:03 seconds could kill!
If words travelling from Christ Church, Barbados, to Norfolk, England via fibre optic cable could decapitate,
Your Kalibank Queen killing skills would have finished me that day.”

The poem continues with a prayer:

“If only you and I could concoct a kindred science to reconcile our complementarily traveled and troubled, occasionally harried and muddled hearts and minds.

Oh that you and I could construct a man-woman, person-to-person faith based on our uniquely shared experiences and scribed in a marriage of our poetic Bajan idiolects.”

But as I have made clear to Gill and others, I am not seeking reconciliation or accommodation with her for her or my sake only.
A socialist she should know how the rift between her and I has been rippling and ripping socially.

A radical feminist in some ways, as indicated, for example, by her refusal to shave her legs, Gill knows that the personal is political, especially in Barbados, because of the depth and breadth of the tiny, 166 square mile island’s political penetration and saturation.

But as a priest after the order of Mechizidek, I would appeal primarily to Gill’s piety, rather than her Marxist or other ideologies.

Not least, because in February Gill told me that I am not the only person God speaks to.



Black and white alleys and allies

The economic historian and former British Labour Party MP Tristram Hunt offers a somewhat rudimentary mapping of the international dimensions of Barbadians’ published and unpublished, private and public sociopolitical ripples in his book Ten Cities That Built An Empire.

Like Ferguson’s ideas about ‘contaminated Christianity’, Hunt’s analysis is useful, but not above critical scrutiny.

There certainly is no evidence that he is interested in engaging with Barbadians’ religious faith penetratingly.

Like the late 19th century, money-minded madame Rachel Pringle, might Hunt, like his academic colleague Beckles, be assuming that every confession of religious faith or spirituality is shallow and of little consequence?

Might the labour rights preaching Gill be similarly convinced?
Might she be merely marketing and bartering the beliefs of Providence Methodist Church, her official place of worship, the last I knew, rather than fully embracing them?

Could it be that like disgraced ex-Methodist minister Paul Flower, Gill has given herself over to publishing ‘bigly’ what she pours contempt on through private unpublished actions?
I hope this is not the case.

More than hoping, through this article, I am acting decisively to alert the prodigiously talented Gill to what she and other members of the DLP, BLP and other stewards of Barbados democratic legacy are at risk of wasting, like the prodigal Englishman Tom Rakewell.

I have also been in touch with our mutual friend Reverend Hinds to this end (efforts to reach Richards through UWI and other initiatives have however so far sadly fallen on deaf ears).

Both women know that I have been tracking the earthquakes, sudden deaths and other socially seismic events that have shaken the faith of Barbadians in recent years with more than a passing interest.

And while I am not so conceited as to assume some messianic mantle that puts Barbadians’ fate in my hands, I also am mindful of my duty as a fully committed follower of the Cosmic Christ’s leading.

I do what I can to be a salting, life saving representative of the Barbadian incarnation of Christ’s brand.
Whether she loves or loathes me, I remain as committed to doing whatever I can to be a blessing to the uniquely beautiful Ms Gill, as I am to be a blessing to all Barbadians and Caribbean people.


References and further reading

A mad world: capitalism and the rise of mental illness


Trust Your Institutions, They Said. It Will Be Fun, They Said. (or “Rupert Murdoch’s monopoly and Morocco’s monarchy”?)



The article below is published with the permission of its author Olaug Holmøy, of Amnesty International, Norway. It was written for an academic assignment as part of her studies in International Development at the University of East Anglia.

The link to Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, suggested by the alternate title is mine. More on the rationale for linking Murdoch and Morocco’s monarch managed media will follow.

I have edited the syntax (not the semantics) of Holmøy’s article very slightly, because of linguistic challenges affecting her writing.



According to Reporters Without Borders (RWB) overview the Kingdom of Morocco is ranked at the 131st place for press freedom, just above Palestine.

The authorities in the country are threatening journalists, citizen-journalists and also foreign media with surveillance, heavy fines and imprisonment.
Sensitive subjects such as Islam, the monarchy or Western Sahara are areas the authorities don’t want the media to be snooping in, and will therefore do everything within their power to prevent it from happening.
A group of journalists’ wanted to give training to citizen journalist via an App in Morocco.
Free Press Unlimited (FPU), Small World News and The Guardian Project developed the secure storytelling app called StoryMaker.
This app would provide the citizen journalist of Morocco with the opportunity to publish content and they could have been anonymous while doing so.
The StoryMaker app could be a great chance for the Moroccan people to share things about their country, reveal situations about their society and the government. It is regarding this last point that things gets tricky.
According to an article by Amnesty International from 2016 the authorities believe that grassroots journalism, like StoryMaker, can destabilize the peoples trust in their institutions.
Who’s to say the Moroccan people should trust their institutions?
After shutting down an opportunity to spread information about their situation, it does not seem reasonable to trust ‘them’.
Because of this initiative seven journalists faced trial, and some of them could get up to five years in prison.
Another example as to how the authorities work is the amendments to the criminal code.
RWB means it clearly was designed to restrict journalists’ right to information.
Journalists’ without information is no journalist at all.
According to Rethinking Media Development countries needs rules to make sure that all citizens have access to information in order to foster a media that serves the interests of society.

The World Bank have studies showing that a country with high level of press freedom is also a country with higher control of corruption (Wolfensohn, 1999).
This assertion can naturally be reversed, meaning that a country where journalists are imprisoned for taking advantage of their human right, that is freedom of expression, there is most likely corruption within the country.
It is extremely suspicious when journalists get imprisoned when wanting to write about the monarchy.
By doing so it just makes it clearer that they are closing in on a touchy subject.
Personally I am very grateful to organizations like Amnesty for pushing where it hurts and actually demanding change in countries like Morocco.
Thus having huge international organizations coming in to a country and demanding change can be tricky as well.
It can be seen as quite invasive when Amnesty and also The Guardian Project point fingers on how countries in the global south run their society.
Then again, freedom of expression is a human right, and that is in fact universal for all humans.
When foreign media wanted to cover the situation on Western Sahara, the Moroccan authorities stole the material.
They say this decision was made because the foreign media had not asked for permission before starting the story.
Still, I truly doubt the situation would have been any different if they had asked in advance.
So the Moroccan institutions should be trusted, but the people should not ask questions, and do not have access to information about their institutions such as the monarchy or the government.
Using new methods in media, such as StoryMaker is just down instantly.
Then again a platform for anonymous publishing could be misused, and people could in fact write articles to mobilize groups that are not beneficial for the country.

But as this blog states earlier; higher level of press freedom = higher control on corruption. And that can only be good, can it not?
Amnesty International (2016). Morocco: Journalists risk imprisonment for running smartphone app training. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19.10.16]
Amnesty International (2016). Morocco ramps up crackdown on press freedom with trial over citizen journalism. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19.10.16]
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2016). Article 10: Freedom of expression. [online] Available: [Accessed 19.10.16]
Reporters Without Borders (2016). Morocco. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19.10.16]
Wolfensohn, James D., (1999). Voices of The Poor. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19.10.16]
Author, name, (year). Rethinking Media Development. [online] Available at: [Accessed 23.10.16]

Photo: (Photo: ©AP/Press Association Images) [Accessed 19.10.16]

How I’ll Vote Tomorrow (A 2017 UK general election reflection)



I published the following poem hours before I voted in the June 8, 2017 general election in Britain: a snap election, called by Prime Minister Theresa May, supposedly to “strengthen her hand” as she leads the country into  Brexit negotiations with the European Union.

Part battle cry, part prayer the poem addresses issues I and other UK citizens and residents have been grappling with since before the shocking murder of South Yorkshire MP Jo Cox and other extraordinary manifestations of  our apparent failure to cope in what by reasonable estimation may be considered Britain’s “captive state”.

The video recording of former United States warrior-president Dwight D Eisenhower’s poignant warning about the threat to his country’s democracy posed by its own “military industrial complex” is included here in that context.

I explore these and related ideas in an as yet unpublished article, entitled “An Eisenhower eye on Elor Azaria’s, Alexander Blackman’s and Sir Hilary Beckles’ plays, prisms and prison terms”, the fourteenth article in my long-running ‘Mouth of the Beast’ series.

And my preoccupation in this poem with the ongoing ‘Free Marine A’ saga is in fact a manifestation of the chilling effect that that case has had on my mental state: the fact, essentially, that the Court Martial Appeals Court decision that basically earned Blackman his freedom was like the “Cry havoc!” invoked by Shakespeare in his play Julius Caesar.

I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that that deeply depressing and divisive legal decision, secured with the assistance of a highly questionable campaign run by the controllers of Britain’s own “MIC” (media industrial complex), has sickened me physically.

Indeed, as I recently hinted to Dr Rachel Clawson of the University of Nottingham, leader of a study on forced marriage among disabled people, turning on the question of their mental capacity, the difficulty I have been experiencing writing the “Eisenhower eye” article stems from a very real fear that it might be the death of me.

I told Clawson of the sense of “ambient terror” that I live with daily, but did not disclose my very real fear that the manslaying “Blackman brigade” might come after me.

This sense of peril to my family’s and my own personal well being and life prospects, stems not only from my situation as a member of Britain’s Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) community. It is rooted in a vulnerability that I have been groomed in by the majority black Barbados government’s peculiar capacity to inflict harm on non-conforming black citizens, directly or indirectly, where ever they may be.

It is rooted in my experience of “state capture”, Barbadian style, through that country’s strong ties with the US, Britain, Canada, Singapore, India, Zimbabwe and other Commonwealth countries.

I have long-running experience of the soul suppressing pressures of the island’s political, religious, media, academic and other orthodoxy enforcing elites that make a sham of its notions of freedom and democracy.



How I’ll vote tomorrow
For those who may be interested to know,
I will be voting strategically tomorrow.
I will be voting for the candidate I consider the ‘lesser evil’.
For a person who, on balance,
Will do what is best not just for their party, media, trade union,
or business backing beaus:
they will act first and foremost for the ‘ordinary’ people who extraordinarily amid this country’s mass media induced existential haze, voted them through.
I will be voting for a person of profound and practical conviction.
Whose good works, not their rhetoric, demonstrate their belief in a just yet merciful God.
I’m not particularly interested in church, mosque, synagogue or temple attendance.
As far as I can tell, much of the world’s problems
Stem from a disemboweling of truth by religious congregations.
The greatest threats we face stem from “religiously” secular, fundamentalist, evangelical atheists who have more than they will ever know (or admit) in common with fundamentally impious, self-deluding religious fanatics.
I can speak on this subject with some authority
Because I used to be firmly entrenched in such secular and religious communities.
And even now,
I am not entirely out of the woods.
But how could I be,
While still living in and engaging sympathetically with fellow travelers in the world?
How could I be untouched by others suffering?
How could I not be influenced by the needs and desires of fellow spiritual immigrants?
How could I not understand Thomas Mair’s anger and confusion,
Even as I denounce and deplore that misogynist maniac’s murder of Jo Cox?
How could I not empathize with Alexander Blackman’s desire for a freedom that I feel certain he, his lawyer Jonathan Goldberg, the Daily Mail campaigner Paul Dacre and that paper’s owner Lord Rothermere know he has not earned.
I have no end of respect for the ‘Big Al’ who dared to put on a British services uniform some years ago.
But having so egregiously disgraced Lord Nelson and every other British hero and “shero” who went before him,
Named and unnamed;
Known and unknown,
Shouldn’t “Marine A” relinquish any claim to the high honor of a marine’s uniform?
Hasn’t his obscenely callous conduct in Helmand Province brought enough shame on British citizens and residents.
Hasn’t his juvenile provocation of religious fanatics, like the Charlie Hebdo journalist’s, put enough of the people he was supposed to be protecting in the line of fire?
Must he like the predatory pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who compared his dark deeds to stealing a bagel, insist on the honorable discharge he does not honorably deserve?
I empathize with Blackman’s wife, his sister Melody and other family members who campaigned for his freedom.
I too am a ‘family first’ man.
But it cannot be right that they and other people cast aspersions on the character of ordinary, hardworking people, by calling other blokes critical of their campaign ‘lesser men’, as Melody has done.
Some citizens and residents of this country may never see a designated battle field beyond Britain’s shores.
But aren’t many parts of this country unofficial war zones?

I shudder to think what life was like for murdered mother of two Kerri McAuley before ‘GI Joe’ Storey effectively ‘orphaned’ her children.

Like Blackman and Israeli medic Elor Azaria, Storey has ‘stoically’ pleaded manslaughter, by reason of diminished responsibility, the EDP reports.
And yet I know of other Norfolk men and women for whom daily life is filled with various Manchester, London, Paris-like terrorist attack terrors.
The battle of the sexes is not always a cold war.


Screenshot of Rachel Clawson led forced marriage study website
Screenshot of Rachel Clawson led forced marriage study website
And one child I know was sexually and violently abused by a grandparent from the age of five until adolescence.
And that person is apparently still blaming him/herself because their body may have responded ‘naturally’ to the abuse, one that routine rape had become the norm.
Talk about cynical sexual grooming!
Talk about the human feeling distorting fog of war!
Talk about terrorism making us headless chickens primed for political manipulation by the likes of Epstein, Steve Bannon and Donald Trump!
Talk about the tragic ‘success’ of the spirituality dismissing, life experience devaluing biomedical model of psychiatry that is propagated by the military industrial complex about which president Dwight D Eisenhower warned!
Former soldier Ian Duncan Smith can tell us more than a little about that – as he can about the use of psych ops tactics by Brexiters during Britain’s EU referendum brouhaha.
So too, probably, can Welsh MP Tommy Mercer and other ex-soldiers who have apparently never learned the discipline of Jesuit pioneer Ignatius Loyola.
They seem more motivated by Trump’s tragic ‘glory grabbing’ and the perverse privacy protection of Peter Thiel, Sir Hilary Beckles, Ben Carson and others who would make Britain as grey and ‘great again’ as gun powder pretty America.
Like Jeremy Corbyn, before his reported, much-hyped awakening to the ‘real world’, they seem to be driving like ‘Bin Lorry Bin Ladin’ Harry Clarke under the influence of their unconscious.
They seem to be laboring like Len McCluskey under some Lloyds Bank-like belief that ‘bigger means stronger’.
I’m a mathematician.
I deal in proportions.
And I am done talking, for now.
From here on, this glossolalist will be practicing a Trappist monk-like silence, as I prepare to vote.
Through my pain, through my shame, through my anger like the EDP’s James Marston’s, I will vote for the one I consider the least potentially catastrophic option among those standing in Norwich South.
And while part of me really wants to tell you who will be the lucky or unlucky sod (Clive Lewis and Simon Wright who he succeeded can tell you that representing me in Parliament is no easy job) I think its best that I keep that between me and God.
As we say in my birthplace, Barbados: “Na name, na blame, na lock-up!”



Statement on Manchester Arena suicide bombing tragedy

I am praying for grace for the family and friends of those killed and injured by Monday’s murderous Manchester suicide bombing.
I am praying for enlightenment for misguided fundamentalist Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and other conscious or unconscious religious opportunists who persist with the delusion that violence can solve anything.
I am praying for fundamentalist atheists and other arrogant, self-righteous secularists who blame religious people for all the evil in the world even as they themselves propagate bigotry and lies and perpetrate theft, rape, murder and other forms of direct and indirect violence.
I pray that God will help us all look beyond the cosmetic appearances offered by Rupert Murdoch’s, Lord Rothermere’s and other biglionaire’s corporate media monopolizing, divide-and-rule capitalizing analyses.
I pray that our hearts and minds may embrace a deeper, people unifying, simultaneously natural and supernatural spirituality.
I pray that God will help us see that the outrage of the Manchester suicide bombing is matched by the perversion of justice that has been perpetrated by the childhood innocence slaughtering of Satanic, predatory pedophiles, like Jeffrey Epstein.
I pray that God will help us see the great psychological and physiological harm that we are doing ourselves and our children by surrendering our roles as parents to politicians and other so-called public “servants” who play politics and profiteer with human sexuality and reproduction.
I pray that God gives us all the grace and wisdom to see through the sham reasoning of political, religious and other ideologues who ignore and undermine the fundamentals of human reproduction, the highest expression of human creative capacity, and the consequent fundamentals of parental responsibility – including that of adoptive parents.
May God help us to not be mechanistic, headless chickens, blindly internalizing and regurgitating, the morally bankrupt teachings of misguided academic ‘celebrities’ and ethically adrift scientists.
May we appreciate that at the level of principle, the bewildering brutality of the Manchester suicide bomber is matched in many ways, on many days by the evil perpetrated against children in British, American, Barbadian, Indian and other societies.
May God help us to see that there is little semantic, pragmatic or ethical difference between the routine abuse and repeated killing of children and adults by polished and priestly yet fundamentally predatory savages like Jimmy Savile, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Dennis Nilsen and other sociopaths.
May God help us to see that our political, religious and other ideological labels will never justify the child sacrifice we perpetrate when, in the words of the Christian apologist C.S Lewis we shout the name of Christ and enact “the service of Moloch”.
Junior (Jay) Campbell
Intelek International

Sir Hilary Beckles, Clive Lewis and others’ gay play (Mouth of the Beast #13)


My apologies to Norwich South MP Clive Lewis and his office staff for failing to forewarn them by private email of the speculation about his sexuality that I started to share via Twitter on International Women’s Day.

In good faith, I had undertaken to put the matter to them before publishing.

But after giving it some thought, at about 3:00 am Wednesday I decided that the concerns raised about me possibly defaming Mr Lewis were exaggerated because his extraordinary 2015 comment about sharing sexual intimacy with then Labor leader Ed Miliband and a goat had already invited speculation about his sexual orientation and inclinations in arguably the most scandalous, public manner possible.

And it is precisely such speculation that I intended, when I posted the International Women’s Day tweet, displayed in the following screenshot:

My International Women's Day 2017 'gay man' Alpha Woman tweet.
My International Women’s Day 2017 ‘gay man’ Alpha Woman tweet.


It reads “On #InternationalWomensDay I’m revisiting #CliveLewis’ jesting 2015 comment abt him and @Ed_Miliband sharing sexual intimacy with a goat…”

I not only go on to claim that this wildly suggestive comment, made by Lewis in the heat of the 2015 general election, raises questions about his sexual orientation and proclivities but also subtly present this proposition as an expression of personal affirmation and political ambition by alluding to reports of Lewis’ aspiration to replace Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party.

“Is the gay man the new #AlphaWoman?” I ask, cheekily.

This is actually a ‘cultural appropriation’ of a declaration or question I heard on Woman’s Hour, on BBC Radio Four recently.

Something like “The gay man is the new alpha male,” said the program’s host that day, possibly Jane Garvey or Jenni Murray.

So my Twitter post about Lewis’ probable (from my standpoint) homosexual orientation actually has a heterosexual undercurrent, rooted in the ongoing ‘battle of the sexes’ that I find myself reluctantly waging with Barbados’ fundamentalist feminists and other women and men in the Caribbean, the UK, the US, Africa, India and elsewhere, who engage in gender, race and religious racketeering, consciously or unconsciously.

And I assert my right both as a journalist and as one of Mr Lewis’ constituents to engage in such speculation, in line with the Western democratic notion that those who hold public office should be prepared to undergo public scrutiny.

Or we could say “To whom much is given, much is required,” if we want to clothe this idea in biblical language (Luke 12: 35-48).

‘Brother Lewis’, whose office is housed at the Open Youth Trust building, owned by prominent Judeo-Christian Norfolk businessman Graham Dacre certainly seems to have some  Christian instincts.

Screenshot of BBC report on Lewis' extraordinary comment.
Screenshot of BBC report on Lewis’ extraordinary comment.

Which is possibly what made his seemingly off-the-cuff, impulsive, carnal-knowledge-curry-goat comment so shocking, presumably, to Pentecostal Pastor Aaron Machaya, Anglican Bishop Rev Graham James, Ishaan Mosque leader Uthman Morrison and other leaders of Norfolk’s Christian, Jewish, Islamic and other religious communities.

Lewis’ ‘loose-batting-cricketer’ comment (slashing wildly, outside his off-stump, metaphorically) was probably less surprising and offensive to the trade unionists, left-leaning, atheists and other journalists, business people, politicians and political activists that I am inclined to believe he hangs out with more frequently.

But I am primarily concerned with how his comments would have been received by members of Norfolk’s gay and bisexual community.

In fact, from my standpoint, I think the still relatively newly minted parliamentarian Lewis’ comment might have been intended for the amusement of gay males particularly.

And that is because I believe Lewis is a member of Norfolk’s homosexual male community.

It is this conviction, bolstered by the testimony of a member of that community who shall remain nameless, that prompted me to contact Lewis’ office in the first place, on Sunday, March 5.

I had by then spent at least three weeks working on this thirteenth installment of this ‘Mouth of the Beast’ series of articles and resolved that while I would be representing professor Sir Hilary Beckles as a homo-ideologue, rather than a homosexual, I would be representing Lewis as a gay man, in line with my intuition based, anonymous source supported belief.

Now, readers should note that I am not stating that Lewis, viewed by some as a potential replacement for Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn, is gay definitively.

I believe that he is gay but I would not, indeed could not, in good faith assert this as an irrefutable certainty.

I trust my gay source, who has offered evidence that corroborates my belief.

But that evidence was not offered incontrovertibly.

So I am prepared to be proven wrong about this.

But frankly, I do not think I can be.

I believe that if Mr Lewis denies that he is gay, he and I shall have to agree to disagree.

That is not to say that I would call him a liar.

That is just one possibility.

It may just mean that his and my definitions of ‘gayness’ differ fundamentally.

You see, my definition of ‘gayness’ includes both sexual and non-sexual male-on-male attractions. (And I can think of at least two Barbadian men I know whose preference for male company may stem from such attraction.)


Mighty Gabby - live performance, 2012 (Wikipedia)
Mighty Gabby – live performance, 2012 (Wikipedia)

Indeed, it includes forms of man-to-man combat and hostility.

That is where Barbadian singer Peter ‘Ram’ Wiggins’ 2010 song ‘Hit It’, featured in the video at the top of this page, comes in.

Based on a scandalous, public, physical attack by prominent Barbadian Calypsonian Anthony ‘Mighty Gabby’ Carter on DJ Anthony ‘Admiral’ Nelson that year, it offers insights into Barbados’ culture of bullying and intimidation, which is paralleled, I think, by a culture of ‘buller’ intimacy (we generally use the word ‘buller’ there, instead of terms like ‘faggit’ or ‘queer’).

I am contending that gay sex among males in Barbados is essentially a matter of physical conquest that runs parallel to more patently violent, brutal manifestations of man-to-man animosity and hostility.

I am also contending that this deep-seated, possibly unconscious hostility, rooted in the frustration or failure of father-son relationships is at the core of what I have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of professor Beckles and other Barbadian males who apparently think that they have a god-given or other right to deprive me, as ‘grabby Gabby’ did, of the social, financial and other material fruit of my intellectual property.

The ‘gay play’ that I am exploring here and subsequently, is a parasitic, Jimmy Savile-recalling abuse of power by people in positions of privilege and authority.

It is a predatory ‘power play’: a grab for power like Donald Trump’s grabbing at the most exquisitely powerful and vulnerable facet of a woman’s body, arguably.

In both a heterosexual and male homosexual context it entails an at least conceptual ‘boring’, penetration or other disruption of the target’s core identity.

I chose to use the “Iron Ram” video precisely because it includes a photo clip (from 0:26 to 0:28) where the word “bore” appears in a characteristically youthful, contemporary Bajan colloquial English sense, to signify a violent assault of the body.

I have suffered and continue to suffer similar assaults on my identity by Beckles, Lewis and other anti-social socialists, fundamentalist feminists, religious opportunists and other persons who ‘rape’ me socio-politically.

Donald Trump, 45th United States President (Wikipedia)
Donald Trump, 45th United States President (Wikipedia)


But this Savile-like, vampirish perversion of public service by Beckles, Lewis and their allies in the media does not affect me only.

As I explain in the rationale for a petition to the UK parliament that I created on Tuesday, the silencing or suppression of my voice by them and their allies in the UK parliament, the Commonwealth Secretariat, Norfolk Constabulary and other entities has implications for the integrity of those establishment entities.

Calling on Parliament to investigate UK politicians’ role in the criminal conspiracy against me in which Beckles and Lewis are implicated, I explain:

“Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, current Prime Minister Theresa May, Labor Leader Jeremy Corbyn, Lord Prescott and other UK politicians are implicated in a campaign of character assassination and other human rights abuses launched by Barbadian MP Donville Inniss and others against me.

The campaign stems from my opposition to Judeo-Christian hypocrisy and corruption in the 1990s.

In 1999 Inniss and my former business associate Steven Mendes launched an attack on my website The campaign was consciously or unconsciously co-opted by prominent Barbadian and UK knowledge traders, including Sir Hilary Beckles, publisher Jeremy Poynting and Lord Prescott of Kingston Upon Hull. The campaign erodes the democratic ideals and functions of the Commonwealth Secretariat.”




(And just let me note here that at the time of publishing this article I was not aware that Commonwealth trade ministers, presumably including Inniss, were meeting for an inaugural summit in London.)

I include a link to the petition here and invite readers, including Mr Lewis to sign it and work with me.

If he is innocent, he has nothing to fear and should see this as an opportunity to clear his name of any complicity in Inniss’ and others’ criminal, human rights violating, brutal gay play attacks on my knowledge trading identity and activities.

In a word, this is a chance for him to be straight with me and other members of our Norwich South constituency, whether or not he is gay.

Whether or not he is gay, he will want to avoid the arrogance, petty vengeance and conceit of Trump-backer Peter Thiel, the former closet homosexual who was outed by Gawker and financed a lawsuit that forced that gossip rag into bankruptcy.

This is not about gossip. It is about accountability.

The three articles below, written and published in 2010 as a response to the Gabby-Admiral altercation will help readers see what I mean.

The third one, entitled “Gabby-gate: my supposed hidden agenda” details how the failed Democratic Labour Party politician Gabby basically hijacked the sociopolitical capital in my song ‘Obscenity’ in 2000.

This kind of political piracy, plagiarism and psychological rape or penetration is particularly noticeable today as demagogues like Trump claim to be acting on behalf of ‘the American people’.

And the patently partial sloganeering about ‘the British electorate’ by his UK counterpart Ms May, in her least analytical, more propagandizing moments, is not much better.

Indeed, given the suggestion by Ian Duncan Smith that the UK electorate was subjected to a secretive psych ops operation by himself and other Brexiters in the UK’s EU Referendum vote, May might be viewed as a Trump, Beckles or Lewis conquering alpha female: a demagoguery deploying Maximum Mamma, in sexualized, nationalist socialist (Nazi) terms.

I have created another petition, calling on Parliament to investigate this possibility, based on a reference Duncan Smith made to his familiarity with psych ops in the BBC Radio 4 documentary How We Voted Brexit.

I will be elaborating on the dangers of such Hitleresque homogenizing politics and related matters further in my Brexedous – Movement Of the People project, coming soon to



Gabby gets “grabby”: is the glory gone?

Less than a week ago, he was honored with the much coveted “Calypso Monarch of Barbados” title, but today a dark cloud – not a jeweled crown – hangs over the head of one of that island’s most celebrated entertainers.
Anthony “Mighty Gabby” Carter, veteran entertainer and eighth-time winner of Barbados’ annual “Pic o de Crop” calypso singing competition – the glowing high-point of the island’s traditional Crop Over festivities that draw thousands to its shores every year – is facing national and international disgrace at what could perhaps have been his greatest moment of triumph.

Radio announcer Anthony ‘Admiral’ Nelson, a prominent Caribbean critic of the Calypso music genre, and Gabby’s compatriot, is claiming that the highly esteemed artiste got ‘grabby’ with him, physically assaulting him because of his professional criticisms., one of Barbados’ leading online news sources, has published a picture of Nelson, shirt torn off him almost completely, following the alleged altercation.

And Caribfyah TV (, carries a video excerpt in which the irate cultural critic remonstrates against his alleged attacker, claiming that an arrest warrant had been issued for the embattled monarch and threatening the severest possible legal action.

“I am taking this full-fledged! There’s an arrest warrant out for Gabby! I will take it to court and I don’t want any apologies!” he says.

He says “I am going for the highest judgement that I can get out of this!”
Sixty-two year old Gabby’s diamonds seemed destined to become dung from the time his victory was announced.

Large segments of the thousands strong throng that packed Barbados’ Kensington Oval booed voluminously when he was declared the competition winner, in the early hours of Saturday morning.

And Nelson, known for his controversial views as a calypso aficionado was quick to suggest that the opinions of the public seem to have factored little in the judges’ assessment of who had won.

Media reports suggest that popular criticism against “King Carter” seems to be particularly focused on “Ole Ashe”, one of the two self-penned songs he rendered for the competition.

Characterized by a fusion of Iberian (according to the artiste) and Anglo-Caribbean influences, the song combines elements of technical instrumental sophistication with lecture-like vocal narrative – augmented awkwardly, some may argue, with Gabby’s trademark populist jazz-tinged shrieking, en Espanol!

I suggested to Historian Trevor Marshall, a former Chief Judge of the competition that Gabby, also known locally for his political activism (including a number of failed bids for election to Barbados’ Parliament) was perhaps a victim of the perils of his own brand of populism.

Marshall agreed but said that even populist calypsonians are entitled to try to elevate or refine their audiences’ level of musical appreciation.
The well known social commentator also said he would be deeply disappointed with the distinguished artiste, a former cultural ambassador, attached to the Prime Minister’s office, if the allegations made against him proved to be true.

Likening the alleged conduct to that of a “rum shop brawl”, Marshall said that as an exponent of an African oral tradition based musical genre, calypsonians are expected to excel in oral-fencing when under pressure, not resort to physical aggression.

He said, “I think that if you’re a calypso monarch, you have a way with words. You have lyrics. You can defeat and deflect any opponent with words. You do not have to use anything else. Certainly not breaking the law.”

This failure of oral performance, a virtual betrayal of Gabby’s word-craft, Marshall agreed, is probably the most damning indictment that the aging wordsmith will face.

That though, perhaps depends on the prominence to be given in the coming days to the allegation of violence against women that Admiral implicitly leveled at the new monarch.

He said “I will say this to all and sundry: we preach (against) domestic violence in Barbados.
No man has a right to hit another man, for speaking! And no man has a right to hit a woman for anything! And I want to say that to Mighty Gabby!”

One source out of Barbados, speaking to All Voices on condition of anonymity, has suggested that this veiled claim may relate to an incident several years ago that left a former girlfriend of Gabby’s, Hazel King, nursing a broken arm.

Also, another former girlfriend, Joy Workman, a feminist activist, may now feel emboldened to comment on how her relationship with the mercurial artist soured.

The domestic violence suffered by Gabby’s more celebrated compatriot, international pop diva Rihanna, at the hands of Chris Brown, may even figure in future discussions of this unfortunate development – especially if the US based recording artist decides to comment on this crisis in her island home.
Could such a prominently positioned, public opinion garrisoning perspective be what Admiral had in mind when he said he would be pursuing the “highest judgement” against his aggressor?

At the time of his victory last week, Gabby is reported to have waxed biblical, saying “You know all, all, all praises to Jahovah yuh know. All praises Jahovah!”
Significantly, the dreadlocked artiste whose Rastafarian sympathies are well known, also credited the almighty for the inspiration of his controversial hit “Wuk up!”, which won him the calypso monarchy in 2000.

It would now seem though, that as the storm of criticism against him intensifies, the aging oracle is set to be consigned one of the most devastating of biblical pronouncements: ichabod – God’s glory has departed.


As international scandal looms, Barbados Government gets glib

The prospect of international embarrassment over and possible financial fallout from the “Grabby” Crop Over scandal seems to be prompting glib denials of the seriousness of the issue by Barbadian government officials.
Recently crowned calypso monarch of Barbados Anthony “Mighty Gabby” Carter, a veteran entertainer, former Cultural Ambassador attached to the Prime Minister’s office, facilitator of educational cultural awareness projects and internationally renowned afrocentric political activist is facing a criminal allegation of assault, arising from an incident on Sunday in which he clashed with local radio announcer Anthony Admiral Nelson.

In an online video interview recorded not long after the incident ( Nelson, a controversial calypso critic, issued a stern warning to Gabby, linking the cultural educator’s alleged violent conduct to the scourge of domestic violence on the island. An anonymous All Voices source yesterday confirmed that the dreadlocked Gabby, who projects himself as a peaceful, spiritually enlightened artiste, and populist political champion of the black Barbadian masses, has a history of violence against women.

Yet according to local news leader, on Wednesday Ken Knight, Chairman of the National Cultural Foundation (NCF) – the main government body responsible for Crop Over festivities – gave an essentially uncritical, upbeat assessment of the Pic-O-De-Crop calypso competition won by Gabby.

The relative silence of the Nation report suggests that Knight was either not questioned about or refused to comment on the 62 year-old Gabby’s alleged violent conduct, and, more crucially perhaps, that he did not comment on the hugely unpopular decision of the NCF calypso judges to crown Gabby: the unpopular NCF decision that arguably set the whole “Grabby affair” in motion.

So – again according to – Knight mentions the comparatively minor booing that the audience at one event (Soca Royale) bestowed on calypso femme Terencia “TC” Coward, but said nothing about the booing that exploded at Kensington Oval when Gabby was named winner of the NCF competition!

Knight’s strategic analysis, published late last night, was predicted by earlier, similarly dismissive comments from the island’s Tourism Minister Richard Sealy.

Speaking to Voice of Barbados radio (VOB 92.9) earlier in the evening, Sealy seemed intent on deflecting attention away from the “Grabby” debacle, claiming that this year’s Crop Over had been essentially controversy free.

A remarkable claim, considering that the Pic-Of-De-Crop calypso competition is the unquestioned jewel in the crown of Crop Over – and the person adjudged “Calypso King” the master, arguably, of all he surveys on Barbados’ cultural landscape.

Comments by Pic-O-De-Crop producer Adisa “Aja” Andwele of the NCF, on the same radio station yesterday, are even more puzzling – if not alarming. Andwele, a performance poet and musician of some renown said that some elements in the media were seeking to create a controversy where there was none and that this behaviour was putting the islands premier cultural festival at risk.

Andwele may have been referring to the All Voices report published by this writer yesterday. In that report, I made what some might regard as a tenuous link between the “Grabby” affair and the much publicized criminal assault by American pop singer Chris Brown on US-based, Barbadian pop star Rhianna.

I suggested that Admiral’s linking of the assault allegedly inflicted on him by Gabby, to campaigns against domestic violence in Barbados, may have been a calculated manifestation of the Festival Stage host’s avowed intention to seek the “highest judgement” he could get against his supposed aggressor.

I stand by that suggestion. If, as Admiral’s language suggests (including his allusion to how his alleged fight with Gabby could influence his show’s listenership) he intends to make full capital of the “Grabby” affair, at Gabby’s expense, it seems reasonable to assume that he might hope to have his cause endorsed by his highflying international songbird compatriot, Rhianna Robin Fenty, given her own unfortunate experience as a victim of physical violence.

I would also suggest that Andwele’s, Sealy’s and Knight’s energies would be better spent on proactive efforts to ensure that Barbados’ cultural industries are established on an authentic ethical footing, rather than concern themselves too much with how this or that artiste appears in the international press.

Some years ago, I did an interview with former Permanent Secretary in the Jamaican Ministry of Tourism Karen Ford-Warner.

The widow of the late Barbadian playwright Earl Warner, Ford-Warner now resides in Barbados where she has been working as Deputy General Secretary of the Caribbean Tourism Organization.

Perhaps the governmental authorities who seem so keen to protect Gabby’s and Crop Over’s international image might find the counsel she shared with me during our interview instructive.

I do not recall her precise words, but the substance of her point is this: the best tourism products are not focused inordinately on the satisfaction of the visitor; they first service the needs of the people who produce them.

Put differently, in a domestic relations context, you might say that what Barbadian calypso lovers owe Gabby (and Andwele, Sealy, Knight and his other “connections”) is miniscule compared to what he (and his “connections”) owe the Barbadian calypso loving public.

And I am not talking solely about material remuneration.

Indeed, I am talking principally about the currency of respect.

I would venture that it is the disrespect implicit not only in Gabby’s recent patronizing mouthings, but also in things he has said and done over his thirty-year long career in calypso and politics – his arrogant utterances and blatant affronts to the Barbadian electorate’s common sense – that is at the crux of his current problems.

I therefore suggest that rather than trying to gloss over the current controversy, he and his “connections” should give some serious thought to how they might repay their debt.



Gabby-gate: my supposed hidden agenda

My “closeness” to Barbadian calypsonian Anthony “Mighty Gabby” Carter – the man at the centre of what I have dubbed “Gabby-gate”, has made reporting on the issues around his alleged assault of radio announcer and music critic Anthony “Admiral” Nelson a bit difficult for me.
It is a dilemma I believe every journalist faces at one time or another, to varying degrees: How do I report a story in which I have a vested interest, without making it “all about me”?

Prominent Voice of Barbados (VOB) radio journalist David Ellis may have grappled with this kind of dilemma some years ago when his father died. At least that is what Astor Marshall, a.k.a. “Cement Man” told me.

Now deceased, Marshall was a frequent contributor to VOB’s popular “Brass Tacks” call-in programme – as I was too, in those days.

It was after an edition of Brass Tacks that Marshall called me and expressed his belief that Ellis as host was particularly critical of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital – because of supposed sub-standard service to his father before he died.

I shall return to Ellis’ journalistic challenges later.

Now I must explain what I mean when I speak of my closeness to “Gabberts” – as fan and friend call the mighty one.

In 2000, I was working as an independent contractor with the Prime Minister’s office, providing (or attempting to provide) holistic communication and education services to the Barbados Government Commission for Pan Africa Affairs (BGPAF).

Prominent Barbadian Pan Africanist David Comissiong, pioneer of the BGPAF was the Director at that time.

I was also facilitating David’s father, the recently deceased Reverend Vivian Comissiong with his autobiography – at David’s request, not his father’s.

If I remember correctly, Reverend Comissiong expressed some scepticism about the project a number of times.

That though, again, is a point for another article.

The point here is that the ardent Pan Africanist, Comissiong-the-younger and I were on rather good terms, in those days.

Some “communication challenges” (he might say my “big mouth”) have come between us since.

In 2000 however, the year Gabby won the calypso crown with “Wuk Up”, the wily Comissiong, a solid friend of Gabby’s (and Ice Records producer Eddie Grant’s) was on reasonably good terms with me.

It was on these terms, presumably, that he one day benevolently and beneficially suggested that I might be viewing Gabby’s “Wuk Up” as a derivation of a song I had written, recorded and produced the same year – entitled Obscenity (

“Wuk up” certainly addresses the same issue as “Obscenity”: the annual, stereo-typically judgemental criticisms and denouncements by Caribbean church leaders of Barbadians’ and other regional revellers’ sexually suggestive dancing during our respective festivals – Crop-Over, Carnival and so on.

And Gabby does defend the revellers against these criticisms, as I do, essentially.
However, while I would admit to feeling that I had to some extent been upstaged by the veteran calypsonian, I would not say that my feelings affected my assessment of his song.

My assessment of “Wuk up” – such as it might have been during my conversation with Comissiong – would have been influenced first and foremost by how I felt it compares with “Obscenity” – and not just with that song, but with the wider “Lewd Logic” project of which “Obscenity” was a part.

It is on that basis that I would have told Comissiong or anyone else asking, that “Wuk Up” was perhaps a good song, but not great.

Compared to “Obscenity” and the overall Lewd Logic CD project, I could only ever view “Wuk Up” as a poor imitation.

I say imitation because I do believe I had written my song long before Gabby wrote his.

Certainly, when I sang “Obscenity” for Spar1 Music chief Mike Thompson, the day in 1999 or early 2000 when he visited me at Poetpourri House in Barbados, he did not suggest he had heard anything like it.

And this was some time ahead of the 2000 Pic-o-de-crop Calyspso competition, and Gabby’s late entry with “Wuk up”.

Years before, Mac Fingall, another Barbadian calypsonian had done “Ah go wine”, another song about Barbadians’ botsie-centric (buttocks-centred) dancing.

However, while that might be described as being defiant of critics generally – not just cleric’s faultfinding – “Obscenity” (and its “Wuk up” imitation), was both more specific and direct.

Some might even call it confrontational.

There was also a song by calypsonian Charles “Romeo” Smith – “Praise Jah for Crop Over”, depicting a member of the Sons of God Apostolic Spiritual Baptist Church breaking rank, so to speak, and “playing mass” with the Crop-Over revellers one year.

Here again though, the treatment of the issues was somewhat superficial.
The Lewd Logic CD is an approximately one hour, one and a half minutes long, predominantly spoken discourse, adapted from an essay of the same name, which I wrote in 1998.

The discourse is punctuated with instrumental excerpts from “Obscenity” and climaxes (I couldn’t resist) with the full vocal and instrumental version.
The project was not intended to win me a calypso crown: it was a radical, holistic attempt to facilitate social change.

It combines theological apologetics and an analysis of Caribbean and broader church history with populist arguments, to promote a balanced assessment of Caribbean people’s sexually suggestive wukking-up or wining.

I believe that as such, the CD was the first of its kind anywhere!

It is not the only first for which I can take credit as a creative artist and activist.

As the blurb on the CD cover says, “An innovator, Bendia (I sometimes used the name Bocar Bendia – last name pronounced Ben-jah, signifying son or child of God) is also known for his pioneering work in the literary arts field, chiefly as a founding member of the Voices: Barbados Writers’ Collective.

Bendia was also responsible for what may have been Voices’ first significant effort to bring Barbadian poets and jazz musicians together, through his ambitious 1997 Poeticjazztice project.”

Now, since the playing of “Obscenity” by Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation announcer Arturro Valentino, when I did a promotional radio interview with him, “Obscenity” has never again been played by a Barbadian radio station – as far as I’m aware.

And this in spite of the Lewd Logic project’s stated aim of stemming the spread o HIV AIDS in Barbados and the Caribbean!

On one of the six panels of the CD cover, there is a poem entitled “A Word to the

Wise”, which reads:

Sex is cerebral; there is more to it
Than what meets the eye.
The best lovers are wise lovers
With a vision and a plan for their lives.

Wisdom dictates moderation
And prudence at all times.
So when you party
Remember your plan:
Live life as full as you can.
If you goin wuk-up, wuk-up wise!

“Obscenity” and the overall Lewd Logic project, therefore, is not just about making a hit song, “being true to calypso”, winning a car or any such thing – however laudable or helpful those things might be.

It is about inculcating a balanced sense of self among Caribbean people, in an area of our lives that affects us profoundly. The consequences of imbalance and excess in this area can include death.

I give this background – this context or what I call my “closeness” to Gabby – because it is the perspective from which I approach “Grabby-gate” s a journalist.
This background informs my view of the poet Aja’s and other National Cultural Foundation personnel’s keenness to suggest that “Grabby-gate” is a minor distraction from the main news coming out of this year’s Crop-Over festival -there really is no controversy or story here.

It informs my view of the overwhelming silence of the Barbados media about an alleged serious physical attack on one of their associates – or is that not what the radio announcer is? – and their failure to meaningfully address the significance of Admiral’s association of Gabby’s alleged violent conduct with the scourge of domestic violence Barbadian women (and men) contend with.

The only suggestion I have seen of any media house pursuing the possible hint by Admiral that what he allegedly suffered at Gabby’s hands, may be similar to the violence suffered by Barbadian international recording star Rihanna at the hands of her ex-boyfriend Chris Brown – a possibility I have been pursuing from my first report on “Grabby-gate” – is a report on about Rihanna’s appearance with Eminem in a music video of a song about domestic violence (

So, I propose that the real question around “Grabby-gate” is not about any hidden agenda on my part.

In the language of RPB’s song this year: I am seeing the signs and I am reporting on them – even at the risk of being accused of having a hidden agenda.

The question is, why are Dennis Johnson, David Ellis, Anthony Brian and other Barbadian journalists and publishers not doing the same?



Hilary Beckles’ and Clive Lewis’ scholarshipwreck – Mouth of the Beast #12

A recent Twitter conversation with Macro Economist Ann Pettifor
A recent Twitter conversation with Macro Economist Ann Pettifor
Give me a child…
I ended the previous article in this series with the suggestion that no one has suffered more because of the presumed ‘inerrancy and infallibility’ of professor Sir Hilary Beckles’ “Western scholarship” than his family, especially his son Rodney.
And to support this claim I cited the seemingly paranoid, perverse reason the prominent Pan Africanist Sir Hilary gave the Barbadian media and public to defend his decision to send Rodney to a well known, predominantly-white-Barbadians-controlled-and-attended primary school: according to media reports, he said it was to spy on white people, basically.
I maintain that this explanation by Sir Hilary when his parenting was subjected to scrutiny predicted or foreshadowed his son Rodney’s later illegal drug usage and killing of his friend Khalil Campbell in January 2007.
To be clear, I am not saying that either Beckles Jr’s illegal use of marijuana, for which he was not tried, or his killing of Campbell, for which he faced a murder charge and was acquitted, were inevitable.
I am simply asserting the widely evident fact that illegal drug usage and extreme violence are part of a pattern or continuum of behaviours and situations that may, in Rodney’s case, legitimately raise questions about Sir Hilary’s and Lady Beckles’ parenting competence.
A similar predictability is behind Aristotle’s much quoted assertion: “Give me a child until he is seven, and I will show you the man.”
‘Professor’ Viola Davis, Chancellor in the school of life that I am still attending, framed the equation more poignantly, as she commented on short-sighted, petty political machinations by David Comissiong, one of Beckles’ key reparations crusading allies, ahead of the fateful 2001 UN Conference.
Quoting the ancient Heraclitus, consciously or unconsciously, Davis told me “Character is destiny.”
My focus is the kind of seeds of distrust and suspicion that were sown in the infant Beckles’ mind, and how these sour seeds or bitter beliefs may have borne fruit in the tragic, lethal outcome of a dispute which, according to at least one news report of the time, may have begun as a case of good natured teasing by Campbell about the shoes Beckles Jr was wearing.
More broadly, I am not only concerned with the normaliszation but, and more acutely, the ‘domestication’ of what 2016 Labour Party leadership challenger Angela Eagle has called the “politics of grievance” and particularly the mixed messages that rote recitation of such rhetoric sends to ‘Labour children’.
In other words, I am concerned about the conscience corrupting, mind poisoning potency of the economic historian Beckles’ and other Labour ideologues’ insufficiency rhetoric in child rearing, familial contexts.
Labour predictability and self-fulfilling prophecy
Blott - Blair-Abbott
Blott – Blair-Abbott
In the previous article I noted that like Sir Hilary, both former Labour leader Tony Blair and his prominent Jamaican-descended colleague Diane Abbott have been publicly criticised for socialism-preaching-but-not-practising school choices.
I think it can be reasonably stated that there is some kind of vision blurring blot or disconnect around Labour politicians’ understanding of and attitude toward scholarship.
And while prime minister Blair may be viewed as having sought to address this political-pedagogical disconnect or dysfunction, with his “aspirational” New Labour project, his deputy Lord Prescott’s ambivalent attitude toward education probably provides one of the worst examples of this dysfunction’s tragic efficacy – possibly only surpassed by Blair’s Pentecostal excursions.
In his autobiography, ‘A Journey’ the Constantinian complex afflicted Blair shares details of a visit to a Black Church Conference in Brighton where he got “drunk with the spirit”, in a manner not entirely dissimilar from his son Ewan’s experience with alcohol a few days previously.
But I cannot fault Blair too heavily for integrationist overtures or mixing his drinks, while denouncing Beckles’, Nigel Farage’s, Trump’s, Louis Farrakhan’s and others’ racial racketeering isolationism.
My concern is to draw attention to the pragmatic problems that arise when your domestic, personal pedagogy and parental discourse is out of sync with your ‘political broadcasting’.
This kind of Blott (Blair-Abbott) phenomenon seems to persistently blur Beckles’ and other fundamentalist Labour preachers’ vision.
It seems to restrict their neuro-ideological airways, obstructing the circulation of rational thought in the domestic sphere, where as any sound socialist knows, it matters first and foremost.
Home Economics
Readers will recall what I first shared in article seven of this series (and quoted in article eight) about the “impracticality of a dualistic, ambivalent British manners matrix that can only ever assure a fragile peace.”
Note also that the “‘too polite’ Norwich-based, lifelong Labour Party supporter” I referred to in that connection is “working in the education field”.
That individual, a head teacher, voted for Clive Lewis on the basis of his proficiency with Labour’s rhetoric of the marginalized, I believe.
In fact, as I recall, when I asked that educator why he/she was voting for Lewis, he/she simply said something like “Ooh, I could never vote Tory!” (I use the gender referent ‘he/she’ to protect the individual’s identity.)
And I seem to recall that top level educator shuddering as those words were spoken, clearly showing deep revulsion at even the idea of voting Tory.
This apparent instinctiveness or automaticity of response underscores the point I am making here about the rote-like, robotic or Corbottic (inspired by the political collaborations of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott) character of Labour discipline and indoctrination.
Or, in a word, its predictability.
And I should note here that in my mind Aristotle’s prophetic formulae is associated with Roman Catholic indoctrination more than ancient Greek philosophy.
Perhaps that is one reason why in April last year I told Dr Michael Nibblet of the University of Warwick that I see little difference between some universities’ and churches’ pedagogy.
Indeed, from my perspective, even the antagonistic, fundamentalist atheist AC Grayling’s New College of the Humanities project can be construed as a psychologically self-alienated and socio-linguistically short-sighted and ill-fated religious venture, possibly having less to do with that Western scholar’s academic ambitions than with childhood trauma suffered in Gambia or Malawi.
But more pertinently, my preoccupation with the Roman Catholic Church (lets call it a preoccupation for the moment) has to do with Catholicism’s links to Sir Hilary, my local MP Lewis, the University of Illinois and the previously mentioned Barbados-sown, globally grown criminal conspiracy in which they and other persons and institutions are implicated.
Actually, as with the Labour Party, through a letter before action sent to its London-based Bishops Conference, I have informed the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales that I am considering legal action against it.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols, compliments Wikipedia.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols, compliments Wikipedia.
Sadly, like the Labour Party, the Bishops led by Cardinal Vincent Nicholls have so far spurned my proactive attempts to address the issues undermining authentic, frank and mutually respectful Christian fellowship between them and I, and in turn, between myself and other believers, especially in the local Catholic community.
I am particularly concerned about the state of relations between myself and members of Norwich Justice and Peace, especially longstanding members Pamela Lowe, Colin Allen and Isabel Ingram, as I informed the Catholic Safeguarding officer for our diocese, Michael (Mick) Thurley.
And the behaviour of the Catholic Bishops has only intensified my concerns for J&P members and other Norfolk Catholics’ wellbeing, because unlike the Labour Party, the Bishops have so far failed to even formally acknowledge letters before action that I began sending them by both post and email in June last year.
The Bishops seem instead to be banking on silence, which as Verene Shepherd, one of Beckles’ academic colleagues has pointed out, is one of the deadliest weapons in the arsenal of an assassin.
They seem to be banking on the killer instinct that makes Donald-Trump-like demagogues treat politics, religious or otherwise labelled, like a zero sum game.
And I feel obliged to note the silence here too of Unite the Union General Secretary Len McCluskey.
He too appears to have decided that the best response to my proactive attempts at constructive, conciliatory dialogue is a party political, placebo-like non-engagement policy.
But I and other silence scrutinizing alchemy assessing semanticists are mindful that where silence can be curative and healing in one social context, in another it can be destructive of civilized engagement.
As science writer Jo Marchant and others may attest, it can lead to a poisonous, communicable continuum of death.
And I have been tracking such a semantic series of deaths (including the sudden death of Norfolk County Council executive Harold Bodmer and the similarly ‘unnatural’ death of Labour MP Jo Cox), in Barbados, England and elsewhere, for some time now, and very carefully.
And my heart’s desire is to prevent any more mad Maox (Thomas-Mair-killing-Cox) misanthropic, misinterpretation of ‘the times and the seasons’ (Acts 1:7).
My main concern here, as indicated previously, is to prevent any further assassination of character or shipwrecking of human potential through deliberate or unintended distortions of faith or ideology.
It is to prevent the predictable destruction of life and distortion of ‘intellectual property’ by the globally influential, presumably well-meaning but deeply flawed and fallible scholar Beckles, my local MP Lewis and others implicated in the afore mentioned decades old criminal conspiracy against me.
Travelling hopefully
And as I indicated in a Facebook post recently, while no doubt causing some strain in relations between myself and members of the Catholic Church, the Labour Party and other entities, I expect my crusade for justice to benefit those entities ultimately.
Responding to predictably snide, cynical comments by one of Lewis’ supporters in the local Muslim community I wrote “And the really great thing about this is that not only will a stronger, more unified Labour Party emerge when our work is done, THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE OF BRITISH, BARBADIAN, AMERICAN, CANADIAN and other national political-ecological systems will be transformed for the better.”
Sadly, that selective silence supporting Muslim skeptic seems too infatuated with Lewis, who he claims to have interacted with personally, to grasp the idea that like Beckles’, the Norwich South MP’s ‘scholarship’ (such as it is) could be wrecked by his human fallibility.
Like others in Norfolk’s Jewish, Christian and other religious communities who have endorsed the veteran trade unionist Lewis, his Muslim ally seems intent on portraying me as a ‘crank’ and my fight for justice as a “grand delusion” and exercise in futility.
That Islamist agitator’s insults are to that extent reminiscent of Lewis’ former BBC colleague Mike Liggins, who contemptuously undermined my efforts to have the light of public scrutiny shed on capitalist ‘scholar’ Surinder Kandola, the UK’s largest and possibly most politically influential Domino’s Pizza franchisee.
But discerning readers will agree that like Liggins’ clearly prejudiced view of me, that Muslim detractor’s attitude merely exposes his commitment, conscious or unconscious, to Beckles’ and Lewis’ self-fulfilling prophecies about me.
Like Beckles and others who see the world through a perverse blacks versus whites and vice versa lens, that Muslim will probably continue to see what he expects to see – perhaps until a deeper revelation of Allah’s party politics transcending ways sets him free.
MP Clive Lewis: the darling of at least one outspoken Norfolk Muslim.
MP Clive Lewis: the darling of at least one outspoken Norfolk Muslim.
Reaping and sowing globally and inter-generationally
As previously stated, I view Sir Hilary as a tragic hero.
A man for whom I once had such high regard that I asked him to write a foreword to my book, The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled, I now view with a mixture of modest admiration, suspicion and embarrassment.
Not surprising if you accept my historical perspective, which implicates him, along with ‘publisher emeritus’ Harold Hoyte, broadcaster Vic Fernandes, journalists David Ellis, Kaymar Jordan, Julius Gittens, politicians Donville Inniss, Mia Mottley, Owen Arthur and other influential Barbadians, as key catalysts in the conscious or unconscious, direct or indirect propagation of mind poisoning, character defaming pedagogies, the fruits of which are suspicion, cynicism and social volatility.
I have focused on the fallibility of ‘Labour’ politics and scholarship here.
But the catholicity of justice and peace perverting politics, whether labelled ‘Conservative’, capitalist, Democratic or any other denomination is not lost on me.
Coming from Barbados, where capital and labour, truth and falsehood, faith and doubt may merge imperceptibly, I have earned ‘First Class Honours’ in the study of political complexity.
That is why in 2001, with a prescience not unlike that of the economist Pettifor, whose education at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa enabled her to predict the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis, I warned my Pan Africanist colleagues of the folly of pushing a reparation for trans-Atlantic slavery narrative without serious consideration of the role of Africans as slave traders, not just as slaves.
And while I had no direct contact with Beckles during Barbados’ preparation for the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), it seems clear to me that I was a target of his indirect aggression.
Looking retrospectively, I see traces of the anger Sir Hilary unleashed on me at a University of the West Indies reception, in the reasoning he offered for sending his son to a predominantly white private school, rather than a government run one.
The UWI reception followed a public lecture at the Cave Hill Campus, possibly delivered by former British Prime Minister and cricket enthusiast Sir John Major.
Oblivious to the protocol dictating room temperature for the intake of red wine, I made the churlish ‘mistake’ of asking for a few blocks of ice to chill mine.
Well, you might think that I had insulted his mother (or poked fun at his shoes?), the way the goodly professor responded.
He could hardly find words to express his distress and outrage at my socialite’s offence!
I thought he was on the verge of an apoplectic fit.
And as the look of embarrassment on one of his colleague’s face expressed, this overreaction said more about the character of the man than my plebe-like faux pa said about me.
Like the explanation of his school choice for Rodney, that outburst exposes the predictably self-destructive perversity of professor Beckles’ pedagogy, and point not only to a corrupting of Rodney’s conscience by his father from a very young age, but to the corruption of Beckles’ own conscience over many years.
It points to or predicts the cynicism of that sage.
And following this familial economic forecasting lead, it is difficult to see the thinking Beckles outlined for his school choice as anything but a rationalization of abuse of the infant Rodney’s conscience.
I see it as a cynicism inducing, deeply damaging manipulation of Rodney’s moral compass, much in the same way that fundamentalist atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews  Muslims, Socialists and other inflexible ideologues brain wash children and adolescents, making them Jihadis.
Moreover, I believe that the innocence violating, pessimistic priming of a child to see the world through a divisive, paranoid racial lens that is implied by Beckles reasoning, is no less child abuse than the sexual grooming or priming that perverted, predatory Catholic priest paedophiles have excelled in.
In either case the innocence of the child is corrupted and his or her life blighted by assaults on their youthful openness and optimism, the basis of social resilience and wholesome socialisation generally.
And in prefacing a lecture that he gave at Harvard University last year with the assertion that he is an optimist, Beckles at least concedes optimism’s social utility.
Still, what we have here, basically, is evidence of professor Beckles’ poisonous pedagogy poisoning his own son’s mind, possibly irreversibly.
And the possible finality of such damage is indicated by Rodney’s age.
He would have only been four or five years old at the time, the standard ages of primary school entry in Barbados, as in the UK, the US and indeed most countries.
And I have certainly seen the fruit of such insipid inoculation in religious settings, where believer’s are bound-in by distrust of any but those in the upper echelons of their own doctrinal edifices.
The “Fear Factor”, as Barbadian businessman Dick Stoute has called it, operates cyclically, like ‘Labour discipline’, to deny both young and old desired relief.
Sir Hilary speaking at the Anatomy Theatre of King’s College, Strand London in 2015.
Sir Hilary speaking at the Anatomy Theatre of King’s College, Strand London in 2015.
Beckles jaundiced journey
Now, am I saying that the socialism preaching Sir Hilary and Lady Beckles set out to shipwreck their son’s social conscience and maroon his life chances?
I am saying that on a balance of probabilities, the tragic events of January 2007, when Rodney Beckles killed Khalil Campbell in a reputed Jamaican drug den was predictable because of the kind of fundamentalist, anal retentive, anti-social programming that Rodney was subjected to by his probably well-meaning, possibly over-protective daddy.
Moreover, I am saying that the negative, suspicion breeding racial programming that produced that particular instance of privately catastrophic black-on-black violence for the Beckles and Campbell families is characteristic of Jamaica’s labour party dominated political discourse generally.
It is part of the ‘ambient terror’ that many Jamaicans have come to accept as part of their everyday existence.
And I am saying that the ‘whites blaming’ that professor Beckles and others in Jamaica’s, Barbados’ and other Caribbean countries’ educational and political directorates excel in prevents them from addressing the black-to-black trust deficits that are a key component of that climate of fear.
In “The Destruction Of Black Civilization”, Chancellor Williams addressed this kind of trust deficit, albeit on a ‘macro economic’, continental scale.
In his “Overview” he wrote about the consequences of conflict and environmentally occasioned social fragmentation and isolation in the Sudan and elsewhere in Africa.
He wrote “Disunity and mutual suspicion became an African way of life. Small chiefdoms sprang up everywhere, often no more than a village of one or two hundred people.”
What I would have readers note here is how this same description of, lets call it, the political landscape, can be transferred to other parts of the world with little or no modification.
Is not what Williams is describing here a feature of all human society?
We will have disagreements from time to time, and these may lead to a parting of ways and leave lingering doubts and fears.
Some disputes will be explosive, and like the Beckles-Campbell bust-up in 2007, end fatally.
Grudges may even be held in seemingly less serious cases and, as between the sons of Abraham, Jews and Muslims, be sustained indefinitely.
What is Brexit, if not a manifestation of Britain’s perennial discomfort with its European neighbours’ proximity.
What about Scottish longing for independence or Anglo-Irish conflict?
Then there is the fragile peace between Indians and Pakistanis?
Do these conflicts differ from those among Africans fundamentally?
Are black people more tribal than any other people?
Are we less appreciative of the benefits of unity?
I think not.
Indeed, as I explained during a talk I delivered at the University of East Anglia some years ago, as part of a project called Aftershock, it seems to me that black people give other races credit for our strengths and weaknesses with equal ease.
And in doing so, we rob ourselves of agency.
I cite the notorious letter of the British slave owner Willie Lynch to explain what I mean.
Many blacks, especially American blacks cite Lynch’s letter to explain black-on-black distrust and mutual destruction.
They see black-to-black suspicion  and violence as an outworking of Lynch’s advice to plantation owners to set father against son, daughter against mother, husband against wife and so on.
But as I asked my audience at the UEA’s Sainsbury Centre, don’t those kinds of disagreements and divisions occur naturally?
Why then exalt the infantile sociopath Lynch to the status of an evil genius?
Small children in the home and school playground can run rings around parents and teachers, demonstrating proficiency in Lynch-like divide and rule strategies to a polished degree.
My children play mummy against daddy and vice versa naturally.
The point I want to impress on readers is that if we truly develop the cognitive and affective composure and flexibility needed to resolve conflict peacefully, rather than just aping or rotishly reproducing the external forms (especially the words) of that composure and flexibility we cannot help but use those social cohesion building skills with everybody.
We will not differentiate between persons of varying colours, classes or creeds when we are mindful of the fallibility of all human beings.
Empathy, our salvation always: empathy
I can understand why Beckles who spent his crucial, characteristically volatile adolescent years growing up in England, where he was a part of its minority black community, might feel such “mental toughening” of his infant son had some validity.
However, Beckles was then living in Barbados, where the majority black and minority white populations had over centuries, with some difficulty, crafted a kind of mutual accommodation.
There has long been a kind of ‘unofficial apartheid’ on the island, that both sides tolerated, and even exploited, for their own ends.
A rough outline of the arrangement is evident in the domination of politics by black Barbadians, while white Barbadians dominated in the commercial field.
That is a simplification, of course, because in addition to slave ownership by free Blacks like Joseph Rachell and Rachel Pringle, dominance politically or commercially is a matter of perception.
Political office and commercial wealth, like pretty much everything else in life derive their power from the faith we put in them.
And it seems clear to me that faith, whether defined in religious or secular terms is one of the “fundamental forces”, to quote Pettifor, that drive economies at both the macro and micro levels.
This is the power of the ‘placebo affect’ that is evident both in the fields of physical and mental health, as Marchant, author of the book ‘Cure’ may agree.
And the Marxism minded Beckles seems to have put an extraordinary amount of trust in political and commercial dominance to the  detriment of his family – especially the wellbeing of his elder son Rodney.
And let me be clear, again, that I am not without sympathy for Sir Hilary.
Heaven’s knows what he may have gone through as a child in the rural parish of St Andrew at the hands of whites there.
Likewise, I can only imagine how challenging life may have been for him when, at 13 years old, his family moved to England.
But if the goal of scholastic attainment is to maximize individual human potential and in turn the collective enrichment of society, something is sadly amiss when the Vice Chancellor of the Caribbean’s foremost university shows signs of malevolently nursing childhood and adolescent injuries.
Something is sadly amiss when an internationally celebrated educator appears to suffer a Trump-like deficit of empathy.
Why would anyone model UWI or any other educational institution on the ill-fated “Trump University”?