Greetings again. Give thanks for the reasoning.

This project was put to the whole board as far back as 2003, when five year plans for reparation and repatriation were first solicited. Members of the board were not interested. No one from this board forwarded a completed five year plan, so from this perspective, those that have spent five years WORKING on this projcet that could even succeed in bringing all the differnet Pan Africanists and officials to the table, take it with some chagrin that people totally univolved in the work, are now worried about how funds that haven't even been secured yet will be used?

Instead of watching and worrying about fellow RASTAFARI servants, if such people are worried about how the funds are going to be used, why don't they provide their suggestions, in detail. Oh, that would reqire a lot of STUDY and WORK.

You see how willie lynch and mis trust and bad mind has infected the Rastafari Movement? At a time when all I&I should rally together and give thanks that I&I are even sitting down with governments directly to even discuss how to distribute such funds for the purpose of Repatriation, I&I is trying to tear down I&I from within. Couldn't such vibes be held in check for such an important event on the Eve of the Ethiopian Millennium?

Really, why is the I concerned? How is Reparations Now! ( A Rastafari rallying call) going to manifest if I&I don't sit down at the table with governments? In the absence of a Rastafari Global Secretariat, which I&I worked vary hard to establish but failed due to lack of Rastafari participation . . . in the absence of such a structure and Rastafari National Councils, how can I&I expect to agree on Rastafari representation at the international level.

I don't know why Ras I has not gotten involved. He knows how to contact I.

What about the people who don't know the I or Ras I, or Ras Baba Marcus, etc. for that matter? If said people were part of the program, there would still be such suspicion. Some people, for example, would love to see Baba Marcus as part of the team, others would feel the opposite, suspiscious of his motives, seen?

So where is the suspiscion about that the money won't be used properly really coming from? And why project one's personal doubts?

Now the I mentions that the I has a very important project coming up. If the movement gets money yet doesn't fund the I program, does that necessarily mean that funds were misused? You know how many Rastafari programs are out there competing for money?

If the I has such an important project, why hasn't the I been involved with the work to prepare a single Rastafari proposal comprised of all the various Rastafari projects? I&I did this so that Rastafari project proposals would not compete with each other during the negotiations, seen? Since ten projects were to be funded, and projects are being submitted by the larger Pan African movement and business sectors, what chance would the various individual projects have of securing funding across the board.

So I&I approach was to solict for project proposals related to Repatriation and combine them into one proposal so that any money that may be given to I&I would serve all participating projects.

So the fact that I&Istructured the proposal in such a way ought to inspire trust in what I&I is doing, seen? Of course all of the people not involved in the process, who haven't seen the proposal, are the ones revealing what's really inside them, and projecting that onto others. That's not really fair, is it?

Notice how no one is actually contributing to the substance of the real issue: if initial Reparations resources are made to the Rastafari Nation now, how should they be used?

No, as is typical of I&I reasoning these days, I&I avoid the substance and rather cast aspersions and doubt about the integrity of I&I own Rastafari brothers and sisters.

It's easy to criticize. Try sustaining an international campaign for five years, travelling on four continents for actual reasoning (not just internet reasoning) with no institutional support, no source of funding except for freewill contributions, and actually getting several governments to enter consultations. That is actually a great accomplishment . . . .

Ras Nathaniel