Alfred P. B. Kiadii
Kwame Clements aka Franklin Moore, I find your rant against Dr. H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr. and his accomplices of progressive leaning, as a futile attempt to provide not only historical falsification, but also revisionist prejudice to the readership of this forum. However, I am not surprised in the least at the infantile gibberish peddled by you in stark contrast to the fact. Going forward, I will elect to deconstruct the lies you hurled against these decent patriots and nationalists but with keen emphasis on Dr. Fahnbulleh.
In logic, a reasoning is considered flawed when the generalization is not in tandem with the minor and major premises. It is from this backdrop that your tirade against Dr. Fahnbulleh falls squarely below intellectual standards. Surprisingly, such outlandish gibberish comes from a man who pontificates as an intellectual, leaving one to wonder whether this fellow ascribes such label unto himself simply because he likes the euphony associated with the word.
In your attempt to impress the public with a pretense at knowledge, you prefaced your harangue with a claim that Dr. H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr., in your words, is “an avowed Marxist-Leninists.” Interestingly, you expect us to accept this lie to pass as truth without subjecting it to critical cross-examination. On this assertion alone, your entire argument is baseless and qualifies as a patent distortion intended to make Dr. Fahnbulleh appears comic and ridiculous.
I intend to demonstrate to you that you are clueless about ideological coloration. Yet you want to impress us with regurgitating your little thought at every given opportunity. This self-serving style of showmen has no place in the terrain of ideas. You could have done yourself better were you to remain tranquil in your little corner in the United States of America.
Dr. H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr. read Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, but he is neither a Marxist nor a Marxist-Leninist. Like all individuals, he reads these ideological materials to better his understanding of evolving trends in the society. Don’t misconstrue his reading of these theoretical postulates as ascription to them.
Let me provide a little education for you as regards Marxism, Marxism has its universal and specific principles. The former applies to any society on earth, while the latter applies to a specific society. It is important to note that the foundations of Marxism- dialectical materialism and historical materialism- are used by all societies to explain certain phenomena. However, the ideological fixation of a given society has to be localized, taking into consideration the objective conditions of that society.
Furthermore, Vladimir Lenin applies the universal principle of historical materialism to the contradictions of the Russian society to achieve a specific characterization of that society. That application culminated into Marxism-Lennisim.
Similarly, Dr. Kwame Nrumah applied the universal principle of historical materialism to the contradictions of the African society to achieve a specific characterization of that society, which generated the ideological thought of Marxism-Nrumahism.
Therefore, Marxism-Leninism only fits the Russian scenario, while Marxism-Maoism fits the Chinese circumstances. To add, Marxism-Nkrumahism fits the African perspective, which foremost theory is Pan-Africanism. These are the distinctions one ought to know before making a conclusion about those ideological concepts.
To extrapolate a specific principle of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism to Africa or to an African society is dogmatic on one hand, and it is totally unscientific on the other hand. That is why Marxism-Nkrumahism rejects some specific principle of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism without forfeiting to be Marxist.
Following that misunderstanding of ideological specificity, you made another unfounded claim, which defies the truth and only expose you to ridicule. You intimated: “He and his MOJA accomplices, loved yelling charge, not from the frontlines, but from the back of the mob of student demonstrators: were never the first 2 be arrested, but always among the first 2 seek asylum protection, in Foreign embassies…”
The last time I checked Dr. H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr. was arrested twice on political charges. His first imprisonment was in 1968 doing his father’s trial for treason. Then he was 19-year-old. The second was in connection with the April 14, 1979 rice disturbance. He was arrested and charged for treason, because according to the state he was teaching “foreign ideology” and he had used his classroom to indoctrinate students which led to their participation in the April 14, 1979 fracas.
Secondly, at no time Dr. H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr. or other Leaders of MOJA sought refuge in a foreign embassy during the height of the struggle, contrary to your allegation. The last time I reviewed the historical file Gabriel B. Matthew was the one who sought refuge in the Embassy of the Vatican.
These accounts are in sharp contradiction to the asininity purveyed by you. In fact, they are verifiable historical facts that cannot be challenged by you. But you have a problem, yours is a strategy tailored to denigrate the heroes and heroines of the people and elevate yourself to center stage. Insofar that we are alive, every attempt at distortion by you will be visited with intellectual demolishment.
Lest I forget about your point, you tacitly proffered that Third world nations are transformed by a leader with business orientation. This generalization exposes the barrenness of thought and the idiocy of understand you wield on such an issue.
A simple current afro-centric example of an African leader who rebuilt his country that suffered similar pernicious civil conflict like Liberia will jettison your claim to the dustbin.
Paul Kagame is and was neither a business man. He fought with Leader Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s rebel army, becoming a senior officer in the Ugandan army after Musveni’s victories propelled him (Museveni) to the Presidency of Uganda. Still focused on the objective, Paul Kagame invaded Uganda in 1990 with his Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). As a revolutionary, he has tremendously transformed Rwanda from a laughing stock to the pride of Africa.
Today, when one talks about a country in Africa that has acceded to key triggers of the defunct MDGS and the current SDGS, Rwanda stands out. Rwanda is today a shining example of black excellence, owing to the foresight of a revolutionary leader in Paul Kagame, not any business tycoon.
Ludicrously you write: “ When students like Kwame Clements, flogged him, in intellectual debates, in his own classroom, he resorted 2 attempting fisticuffs, when his mind, proved, unequal 2 the task (perhaps, he had now become, intellectually lazy, cuz he had grown accustomed 2 the uncritical adoration of his Student Unification party worshippers, who called him COMRADE BOIMAH..”
With the stroke of the pen, your assertion is found wanting and it is a massive distortion of the fact. You postured about a brilliance due to your recitation of vapid news scripts like a toddler engaging in a recital for a Christmas party. Brilliance is not just the mere recitation of write-outs that you find difficulty in interpreting. It has more to do with one’s ability to decipher postulates and promulgate concepts.
Additionally, HB saw through you as not only an agent provocateur, but also an operative of the National Security Agency who was not keen on the acquisition of knowledge, but rather interested in recording him, misinforming your benefactor in the NSA that he was teaching “foreign ideology” and inciting students against the wretched government of the True Whig Party.
Except in the figment of your fantasy, you don’t match the sophistication of Dr. Fahnbulleh in anything, let alone to say you defeated him in his own classroom. Unlike the fake account proffered by you, you were kicked out of the classroom for unruly conduct and gross indiscipline.
Without the diabolical machination of Head of State Doe and Chea Cheapoo, the two masterminds behind your orchestrated defeat of the Students Unification Party, that wouldn’t have been possible. If you were so sophisticated and successful at beating SUP at the polls, why we did not see the re-creation of other Kwame Clements after you exited power. That would have confirmed that you are so sophisticated. A key hallmark of a successful leader is to produce more leaders.
You missed out on the ideological coloration of MOJA and misleadingly posit: “Rather than compromise like Matthews and form a political party, they formed a movement: which would bring about a political revolution, and usher in an era of Marxist economic reform (public ownership of all private properties, hence the illegalization of all private land ownership, a one party dictatorship, an allegiance 2 the now defunct Soviet Union..”
In contrast to your characterization of MOJA, the organization was a radical Pan-Africanist group occupied with the advocacy for the end of colonial domination in Africa. The organization prime ideological construct is and was Pan-Africanism. At no time did MOJA advocate for the redistribution of wealth and property in a Marxist style insinuated by you.
A classic example of how MOJA subscribed to the tenets of democracy can be demonstrated in its campaign for greater inclusion of the people in the governance structure of the landscape, the abolishment of the property clause and the setting of the universal suffrage at age 18, and the Sawyer for Major campaign of 1979.
The Sawyer for major campaign was the first time in many years that an organization decided to democratically challenge the True Whig Party, your party Kwame Clements. The essence of the campaign was to expose the wretchedness of the system and agitate for the widening of the democratic space. This shows that MOJA was interested in popular participation as opposed to your fantasy of a Marxist state.
To even demonstrate the commitment of the Leaders of MOJA to democracy, in 1984 they formed the Liberian People’s party (LPP), espousing their faith in the democratic process and subscribing to the concept of liberal view and the free market concept of economics. These are hard facts that contradict your narrative that the Leaders of LPP were interested in introducing a despotic one party state, the purging of dissent etc. etc.
Having placed a monkey wrench in your outburst, we intend to unmask the Kwame Clements who struggles to rewrite history to make the heroines of the people’s struggle appear as villains, while he promotes himself to the unsuspecting public, so as to garner sympathy from them.
After the death of President William VS Tubman, the clamor for change in Africa resonated with the clarion call for greater inclusion in Liberia. Realizing the tempo for change was very rife, William R. Tolbert signed up to the mantra of change, elevating the people’s hope for change through lousy political pronouncements, but with little effort at ushering in that change. Yet on the other hand Tolbert was busy making speeches and adhering to the preservation of the class interest of the TWP. At that time, the Liberian people were not prepared to be bamboozled by an oligarchy that strived on pretense, deception and theatric.
Here Tolbert was faced with two dilemmas of opposing poles: to preserve the privilege of the cliquish elite which sucks the country dry, or go with the whole people of Liberia in building a new nationalism and ushering in a society for transformation. Then the people were not interested in the co-optation of a select few in the governance structure of the state, but were fixated on popular participation.
His romantic deliberation was seriously taken by the people who hoped that the days of suppression were consigned to the museum of history. Therein lies his dilemma- a depressed people taking him seriously and wanting change- on the other hand, a conservative reactionary clique pressuring to keep the system in stasis. This political sclerosis led to the emergence of new forces on the campuses of the University of Liberia and the then Cuttington College.
The students-owned Cuttington Echoes emerged on the newsstand analyzing the Liberian situation, flagging contradictions, and making a case for the building of a new nation. So too was the emergence of the students-owned UL Revelation news organ. These two outlets became the filaments for the dissemination of progressive ideas and the abhorrence for contradiction.
It is relevant to note that Kwame Clements who prides himself as somebody who understands better neither engaged in any meaningful activity for the transformation of this country nor wrote a single line expressing distaste for the suppression of the people. He was only interested in getting at the top through scheming because he did not have the wherewithal to do so through an honest process. This has been the defining staple of this fellow who thinks he can cast aspersion on decent patriots.
To go further, our man pits himself against the militants of the Student Unification Party, concluding that he is superior to them. The abounded evidence contradicts this narrative. Where was this lousy showoff when militants of SUP wrote avalanche of articles, detailing the gory orgy of suppression and paralysis in the Republic? I thought this retrogressive element said he is sophisticated than the militants and cadres of SUP. We are yet to see a single piece from him, expounding on his concept of a better Liberian society. NO! Dude was busy cutting corners, representing the interest of the elites.
When Wiwi Davies Debbah wrote an article entitled: “Rally Time,” subjecting the Rally Time policy of President Tolbert to critical dissection, where was this intellectual pygmy who strives on gossip and unintelligible rants? When Brother Abraham B. Mitchell wrote an inquiring article entitled “In Search of an Ideology: Humanistic Capitalism or Socialism,” wasn’t this man around to see the full brilliance of militants of SUP. So too did HJaimonia Stewart write “Hard Time” and did Joe Wylie write “Like My Brothers in Soweto.”
From the other flank, I ask the question: was this man part of the Citizens of Liberia in defense of Albert Porte (COLIDAP) - organization geared at mobilizing the support for Albert Porte against the frame-up charges levied against him by Stephen Tolbert. This was as result of Mr. Porte accusing Stephen Tolbert of using public office for private gains. Kwame has never been part of a single group that mobilizes the people behind a progressive cause. Yet he wants to assume heroic role in the history of the people.
In class analysis, people like Kwame Clements are the dangerous elements that do not only shift loyalty for money, but also embark on a campaign of verbal reign of terror to misrepresent historical account. These ones are not interested in the transformation of the lives of the people. But are bent on using propaganda to sway the historical reality.
However, we will not allow them to misinterpret history to our people. The history of this space took different dimension when MOJA and PAL were formed. These organizations added a new dimension to the struggle for greater inclusion in the landscape. The former trained and educated the people to understand their environment, while the latter was engaged in making radical pronouncement and staging demonstration.
Until Kame Clemens can tell us which struggle he embarked on for the people of this space, his attempt at airbrushing the contribution of Dr. H. Boima Fahnbulleh, Jr.’s contribution of the state and labelling him with communist epithet, is akin to Joseph McCarthy’s obsession with Communism.
From my look of things, Kwame still struggles for balance in understanding these ideological leanings. Either they are two complex for him to understand owing to his obsession for memorization or he is on a mission to distort the history of this space.
Throughout the life of Dr. Fahnbulleh, he has demonstrated prudence not only in activism, but also in public service. Altruism beams through his spine, guide his interaction with people, and drives his passion to struggle for suffering humanity. At a young age returning from exile with a terminal degree, he put his education at the service of the people. This is what distinguishes him from others.
Unlike you, Dr. Fahnbulleh does not pander to the instinct of primitive accumulation and the illegal acquisition of private property. He does not have to cut corner with the NSA to live a decent life. Fingers are pointed at you for allegedly conniving with the perpetrators for the death of Charles Gbenyon. To the judgment seat of history you need to speak about the mysterious death of this gentleman journalist who outperformed you in all aspects of journalism.