Greetings Ras Jahaziel.

Very powerful, insightful words. Yes, I, I&I must internalize . . . .

However, over the strong end, I iditiation showed I something about the I message, particularly this section:

"What happens when the deceiver slips some of the slave master’s doctrine into the speeches of the icon and tells you “Hey, see it here in this speech, your icon said this.”?

When to justify exploitation of the masses the speech says, “There will always be rich and poor because there are those who do not like to work” you will not be easily able to identify this as a slave master’s doctrine that has been stuck in unawares, because blind worship of the external demands that you do not question “God’s words.”

Though it is plain before your eyes that the majority of the world’s poor are the hardest workers and their poverty is certainly not their just desserts, but rather a result of being robbed and exploited by the rich who work the least, you will not question the validity of such statements… because they are “God’s words.”

When you look back through the past four centuries on the plantation, you will realize that your parents and your parent’s parents, your uncles, and your aunts, and their parents have always been working hard. And yet, four generations later their descendants are still the poorest. Then you get to realize that in the slave-master’s system, hard work has never paid anyone except “The Boss” and “The Owner.” The truth is that in the slaver’s system, getting rich is more the result of one’s ability to exploit someone else’s labor rather than actually working hard your self.

But if your worship of The External is greater than your attunement with The Internal, you will fear to confront error if it has by some means found its way into “God’s words.” Countless numbers over the ages have stifled their own inner voice of truth just because of their reverence for that which has been sanctified as “God’s words.” [END OF SECTION]

While I understand the I point to question external paradigms and exteranlizations of the ALmighty, the subtle effect of the I example leaves one the lingering idea that HIM Haile Selassie words are not trustworthy, that HIM made a mistake or was somehow discounting the fact that there are working poor. Left unanswered, the I valid critique (for it is valid to question authority), ultimately tends to diminsih the stature of HIM Haile Selassie I. Was that the I intention?

It would be intellectually dishonest to let HIM words taken out of context stand as representeative of HIM thinking about the causes and future of poverty. HIM Haile Selassie made many speeches that acknowledged the criminal world economic system, particularly the militarism, which was robbing the world's working poor. I have included excerpts from some of these speeches at the bottom of this post.

“There will always be rich and poor because there are those who do not like to work” Examine that statement carefully. Which part of this statement is not true?

So, clever, as the example was, and effective as the whole message was to get I&I to understand the internalized god-power within, the main flaw in the post was missrepresenting HIM Haile Selassie's views on the causes and future of poverty. Its great to question HIM Haile Selassie, because only in that way will it be revealed the wisemind of HIM. See below.

HIM HAILE SESASSIE ON WORLD ECONOMICS

Spetember 3, 1961

“The major challenges confronting the world today are two: the preservation of peace and the betterment of the living conditions of that half of the world which is poor. These are, of course, mutually interdependent. Without peace, it is futile to talk of improving man’s lot; and without such improvement, the task of guaranteeing peace is rendered many-fold more difficult. The assault on these two problems must be made simultaneously, and all of our actions should be taken with an eye to the solution of both.

What the economically backward countries are looking forward to, however, is the application of the money now dumped on destructive armaments to the solution of economic problems.

It is one of the tragedies of our day that while half of the world’s population is wracked by a never-satisfied hunger and remains poverty-stricken, disease-ridden and ignorant, vast amounts are spent by great powers on armaments, money which, if diverted to satsify the basic human needs of the poorer people of the world, could transform their lives and restore them their human dignity, their happiness in the present and their confidence and faith in the future. No nation is possessed of limitless riches, and each heightening of world tensions and the forced expenditure which calls forth greater miitary strength on the part of those to whom we look for aid, serves to lessen the sums available to fight misery, and the great nations cannot, even if they would, enlist their full support in this battle.

And yet, while we await hopefully that measure of assistance which, coupled with our own resources, could assure the ultimate triumph of the underdeveloped peoples over their poverty, the rich and powerful boast of the size of their military arms and the might of their forces. The one claims that it will spend the other into bankruptcy and recognize that the cold war poses not only a military danger: the cold war robs the under-developed nations of their hopes for a happier and more prosperous future. Much emphasis has been laid on the risks to man’s life on this planet which a world arms race carries with it, and too little recognition has been given to side effects and indirect consequences of astronomical military spending. Disarmament must be achieved not only because in this fashion will the threat of a world holocaust be dispelled, but, equally because only through a drastic reduction in the military budgets of the great powers can the vast resources required to raise all of mankind to the level of free men be freed for these purposes.”

Spetember 3, 1961

In order to speed our economic development, most of us require extensive external financial assistance. We need not be ashamed of this fact, particularly when the poverty and ignorance from which our peoples suffer have been perpetuated through the deliberate and long-standing policies of others. It is surely in the interest of those who look to the uncommitted world to swing the balance between West and East that we be economically strong and free of crippling bonds which would limit our freedom of choice. Only if the Non-Aligngned Nations have a real opportunity of choice can their adherence to and support of their policies be of value; a choice dicted by others or imposed by outside influence is a meaningless choice.

We believe that on this score the conscience of the world has been awakened, and that the vast majority of men today recognize the truth of what we say. There are those, however, who raise their voices in alarm, warning us that this assistance is designed only to impose upon us another but equally insidious form of subjugation. With this We do not agree. We believe that it is possible for all of us to receive assistance from diverse sources without compromising that independence and impartiality which We have already declared should be the hallmark of the nations represented here.

Nonetheless, this fear exists, and when it is coupled with the fear that two assistance programmes carried on within the same area by competing power groupings will ultimately result in the importation into our countries of the very cold war from which we seek to disengage ourselves, a powerful and compelling argument for multilateral rather than bilateral assistantce is made. Happily, there already exists, in the United Nations, the effective means for the channelling and administration of massive aid programmes froo of these dangers. Considerable progress has already been made in this realm, and we all have cause to be heartened by the ever-increasing role which the United Nations is playing in this field, a role which is financed by the contributions of those who, recognizing the validity of our fears, are prepared to accept this technique as a means of meeting them at no sacrifice to the advancement and enlightenment of the under-developed peoples. In enlarging the scope of the United Nations operations in the field of economic development, we also strengthen its position and heighten its stature as an international force for the preservations of peace.”

June 27, 1965

Small nations ought to refrain from making themselves tools for igniting friction between the Great Powers. Receiving development aid and other forms of foreign assistance should not be condtioned by obligations to take sides. In order to achieve this goal, they must not only adhere to a policy of political non-alignment but they should also opose and proscribe consistently all small conflicts brought about, and to be brought about, by the prevailing international cold war.

September 2, 1970

We cannot pass without stressing the fact that the vast majority of the nations of today still remain economically under-developed. In the light of this, it is unfortunate that so much is spent on stockpiling armaments, the utility of which is limited to their capacity for destruction. As we have said on many occasions, the diversion of these resources to economic development is not only morally right but it is also politically and socially urgent, since the maintenance of international peace and security depends on closing the gap between the poor and rich nations of the world. It is our hope that the recent steps takien in various parts of the world to lesson tensions will contribute to the curtailment of stockpiling armaments, thus makin available the sorely needed resources for the world’s economoic development.

September 9, 1970

In the present constellation of things the deep concern of our States is the acute economic disparity among nations, the waste on armament, the liquidation of colonialism, the eradication of racialism and the consolidation of national independence. The age-old enemies of man, hunger, disease and ignorance also confront us with such propensity that we have to face them as matters of utmost priority. . . .

Since the problem of development is our greatest concern we can combine our skill and talent to achieve maximum growth within the shortest possible time. . . . The gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ is increasing so much and so fast that unless we can do something about it now, our political independence and freedom of action will become vulnerable. In order to avoid this danger it would be imperative for the developing countries to take a united stand on questions affecting trade, investment and aid.