I'm breathing anyway. Okay. Well, I imagine one of the first things that I should point out, because in some areas it has been misunderstood. I'm still a muslim. I haven't been converted back to Christianity yet, and I don't foresee that I will be. My religion is still Islam and at present I'm the Minister of Muslim Mosque, Inc., which is located at the present time. The offices are located in the Teresa Hotel. And I feel that in the same way that Dr. Martin Luther King is a Christian minister, although he's not so much known as a Christian minister as he is known as a civil rights fighter. And Powell, Adam Clayton Powell is also a Christian minister, but he's more known for his political activities and Glamis than in many others. Although they are ministers of a religion. And they they they leave their religion, so to speak, in the church or their religious duties in the church, and have become involved in the civic evils that have afflict our people in this country. I'm a muslim minister and in my present capacity, I leave my religion in the mosque and work among the 22 million black people in this country in any kind of action program that's designed to eliminate the political, the economic and social evils that have trapped our people in this society and have crippled them now for some 400 years. Our present program involves the active cooperation with any Afro-American leader or Afro-American organization that genuinely designed to and sincerely designed to remove these evils. With my religious philosophy being Islam. I realized that because of the Christian the because of the fact that the Christian religion prevails among our people in this country. We keep religious discussions out of all of our efforts to solve the problem. We don't bring up anything that is going to cause an argument or cause us to disagree because we feel we've been disagreeing long enough. So we are in the process of developing the type of organizational apparatus that will enable all of our people to become involved in an action program which will be inspired by what I choose to call it the political philosophy of black nationalism, the economic and social philosophy of black nationalism, which only means that. While long range, the political philosophy of anyone who believes in black nationalism is that we never will be respected and recognized as human beings until we have our own land, our own nation. But this is long range. The despite the fact that everyone who believes in the political, economic and social philosophy of black nationalism looks forward toward the day when we will be back in our own homeland and living among our own people. We know that this long range program will not solve our immediate problems right now. So with this long range objective in mind, we still are involved in a program that will eliminate the immediate evils, which means that in this short range sense, the political philosophy of black nationalism means that our people need to control the politics and the politicians in our own community. We need to govern our own community. Just as whites govern their own community, we need to govern ours. This doesn't involve any anti whiteness or anti anything. It just means that our people will not respect ourselves as as humans until we can govern ourselves and govern our destiny as other humans govern theirs. So the political philosophy of black nationalism is designed to instill within the black community the idea of self-government, control our own community politically. The economic philosophy follows along the same line that we need to own and operate. The businesses of our community, control the economy of our community so that we can in that way be in a position to create employment, create job opportunities for our people, and they then won't have to be picketing and boycotting downtown to try and force someone else to give give us jobs in their particular in their economy. The social philosophy of black nationalism involves. Us in any kind of action that will eliminate the evils of the community evils devices such as drug addiction, alcoholism, fornication, the the ever increasing birth of babies born out of wedlock, all of these evils that actually create a social welfare problem for the entire power structure. We feel that by attacking these evils and eliminating from eliminating them from our community, we'll be able to elevate the level, the standard of the community to a higher level and make our own social circles more pleasing to us. And then we won't have to feel that we have to force ourselves into somebody else's social circles where we're actually not wanted. In fact, when your own social circles are at a high level, then you're acceptable to other social circles. But as long as you're living in a low type society, all other societies are close to you. So the political, economic and social philosophy of black nationalism is actually designed to change the thinking of the black people in the black community so that we will be more inclined to try and help ourselves instead of sitting around waiting for others to help us in the one at some of the immediate programs or steps toward bringing this into existence. We have. Offered to cooperate with any of the existing organizations that are designed. Toward increasing registered voters in the so-called Negro community. Since many of the groups that had been involved in voter registration actually can't reach the masses and most of the. Of our people and most of the organizations in our community that are designed to have political objectives, any kind of objective. Usually they've only been successful in reaching the the the minority or upper class Negroes. They have never been able to get the active interests, the active sympathy, nor the active support of the masses of people in the black community. No organization has done this. And usually the type of person or the type of organization that can that has mass appeal is usually classified by the power structure. As subversive, seditious, extremist racists and all types of. We aren't classifications like that. So these people have missed the boat when it comes to reaching the masses. The Muslims and the nationalists have had more in mass appeal than any other type of group in the community. So since it has been possible for the Muslims and the nationalists to impress the masses, our. One of our first steps is to try and organize these all of the elements that all of the people we can get from among the masses in to do the legwork and any kind of effort that is already organized toward voters registration. And at the present time, we're in the process of mapping out the city, find out where Negroes live, and to see that at no time does any door. Is any door bypass that hasn't been knocked upon and the Negro behind that door be made aware of his responsibility to become a registered voter so that he can take an active part, especially in the elections of this year. And in doing this, we have no intention of registering Negroes as Democrats or Republicans. I, for one, think that any Negro who is registered as a Democrat or a Republican is a traitor to his race because no political party has done more to check Negroes than this party that calls itself Republican and the other that calls itself Democrat, especially the Democrat. So we feel that the only way the the the our people in this country can really be in a position politically to get any meaningful gains is to have political power that is not committed, uncommitted political power. And by registering them and getting them in a position to cast a ballot, this gives them this puts them in a position to have uncommitted political power and they're in a better position then to bargain than they would be if they register as either Democrats or Republicans, which only means that the party into which they register think that they have everything under control and they they continue to promise the Negro and never fulfill those promises. Also, we don't intend to involve any Negroes in any kind of political action without first opening up their eyes and make them understand what politics is. We feel that our own people have approached the politics emotionally, where the whites have approached it scientifically and very deceitfully. The we feel that if the if our people can be made more politically mature so that they can analyze the political structure and see things as they actually are, for one thing, they'll be able to see that during recent years, the political trend in this country has always created a situation where during the recent elections there they always have would have to have a recount recount because the elections are so close. The examples the governor and other in the in the when they were running for governor in Massachusetts, they had to have a recount. Peabody and somebody else in Rhode Island and Minnesota and in many other places, the race was so close that they had to count the votes over and over and over, which means that any segment of that, but that particular political structure that has a black vote can swing that election either way. And the only people in this country who have such a vote today, decisive vote today, are the so-called Negroes. So they can swing the elections either way at the local level, state level or federal level. And the Nixon-Kennedy. Race recently is one of the best examples of that. And I think most people who are objective students of the recent elections will agree that it was the fact that 80% of the Negroes in this country threw their weight behind Kennedy that enabled him to defeat Nixon. And despite the fact that Negroes threw their support behind Kennedy, put the present administration in office, this administration was it has been in office for four years and are just now getting around to the Negro who gave them the decisive vote that put them in this seat of power. So we feel that they, too have been very hypocritical in dealing with the Negro. In fact, the first thing they got in Washington, all they did was. Make some political appointments. They give big jobs to big Negroes too. Big Negroes who didn't even need jobs because they already had jobs so that the masses of Negroes who were unemployed before the election are still unemployed today. And the masses of Negroes who were the victims of a segregated school system and poor housing still are the victims of those same things today. So we just can't see where they are. And we're only using the present administration as an example of the political hypocrisy, that is that the Negro constantly is confronted with the fact that the strategic role the Negro played in putting this administration in office, and then the fact that this administration had left the Negro in the last and still has not produced anything meaningful for that Negro, in my opinion, is sufficient proof that the Negro faces nothing but political hypocrisy, whether he's dealing with Democrats or Republicans. But he definitely has experienced it during recent years with the Democrats. So also, I think Negroes, as they become politically more conscious of politics and politically mature, can see that there are 257 Democrats in the House of Representatives to only, I think, 177 Republicans, which means that the Democrats control two thirds of the House. There are 67 Democratic senators and only 33 Republican senators. They control two thirds of the Senate. And despite the fact that the Democrats control two thirds of the power in Washington, D.C., the other seats in Washington, D.C., in both the House and the Senate, still, they always have an alibi when it comes to the Negro. They always have some kind of alibi when it comes to delivering or keeping their promises that they make to the Negro to get the Negro to vote them in office. And in they usually get around this by telling the Negro that part of their party are Dixiecrats, which the Negro. When he was dumb, he put all the blame on the Dixiecrat. But today the Negroes are beginning to see that a Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat. Dixiecrat is just a Democrat in disguise. And the although they say that the Dixiecrats lost while the segregationists of the South lost the Civil War, I think out of the 16 senatorial committees that govern this country, ten of them are in the hands of the Dixiecrats. And out of the 20 congressional committees that govern this country, I think it's 12 that are in the hands of the Dixiecrats. That means that Southern segregationists control at the level of the House of Representatives, control 12 of the 20 committees that govern the country. And at the senatorial level, they control ten of the 16 committees that govern the country, which means that we actually have a cracker government in Washington, D.C., which has been placed there by the support that the Negroes give to the Democratic Party. Now, as our people become more conscious of the deceit, the the threat of a political con game that is being played upon them politically, then they will, I think, begin to realize that they're actually barking up the wrong tree tree when they think in terms that of the civil rights struggle or the methods that they've been using in the civil rights struggle, struggle, solving their problems. Once they see that the filibuster and all of this that goes on in Washington in 1964, by the way, among some senators representing a government that's supposed to be the leader of the free world, I think you'll find that a tendency on the part of Negroes to become very much disillusioned, disenchanted with the with wit, with the civil rights approach, will enable them to then expand the approach from the level of civil rights to the level of human rights. And in 1964, we will probably see a tendency on the part of Negroes in this country to turn away from Washington, D.C., in the civil rights struggle and trying to get an answer to their problem. And they will expand it to the level of human rights and take it into the United Nations and place it on that placed before that body, the same as the plight of the Africans in South Africa or the Africans in Angola or the Jews that I heard Justice Goldberg crying about in Germany and Russia the other day, the same as the plight of all these people, has been placed not before their national government, but has been placed before an international body. The direction of the civil rights struggle. Now that the Black nationalists are becoming involved in it will be taken completely out of the hands of Washington, D.C. And it will it will create a situation where in instead of our people going to Uncle Sam, who is actually the criminal, who's responsible for the for the unjust condition that we are in, instead of them going to the criminals seeking redress for their grievances? I think 1964 will see a situation where Uncle Sam himself will be brought into a world court and be made to answer why in in this 20th century, when him representing himself as the leader of the free world in this particular country, do 22 million black people have to beg and boycott and picket in order to get what this? Constitution says everyone is supposed to have when they're born. So if there's any if there is to be any significant difference in the direction and the method of the whole struggle of the black men in this country for human dignity and respect as a human being, I would say that that difference in 1964 would be that the struggle will cease to be domestic, it will cease to be national, and will become more internationalized and will open the door for all of the foreign governments to take an active part in seeing that the black people in this country not get so much civil rights, but get human rights. And we feel that once the black men in this country gets recognition as a human being, then it might be possible for him to get some of the rewards of citizenship. Thank you.

Thank you for a very clear and concise statement. Uh, I'll act as chairman at this point just to keep a little order as far as questions are concerned, and I'll take them as they come.

Dave. Mr. X, which direction do you think the struggle is going to go And. Night in the remains of 1964, particularly with regard to violence on the one hand. And. With relations. Relationship between the races where they have up until now been. Those same segments which have up until now been joined.

Violence is the word that pops up in it. And I get the impression when I hear it. That when they say they expect violence, they're implying that up to now there has been no violence, Churches have been bombed, Negroes have been shot. They've been murdered. No one, when they mention violence, mentions it as if it has been going on all the time. They mention it as if they expect it to just start. Well, what they the reason they mention it in this light is because what they're implying is will the Negro get violent? Up to now, he has been the recipient of violence. He has not struck back. His mind has been stolen and he has been disarmed. There is the ever increasing tendency on the part of black people in this country to come to the complete conclusion that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If whites can defend themselves when they are attacked and they do, if the if we are men, if we are humans, if we are intelligent, then we will never be recognized as such until we react as intelligent humans do. And in the first law of nature is self-preservation. The only one who can't utilize or exercise this law of nature is the Negro. He's told to turn the other cheek. 1964 will not see Negroes turning the other cheek. 1964 will see Negroes retaliating to the maximum extent of their ability. And I think you'll find that they'll retaliate no matter what the odds are. Or no matter what the chances are of them being wiped out or them being successful in reacting in such manner. And they will be justified if the government can step in and bring justice to the Negro. Then I think White should expect the Negro to do whatever is necessary to defend himself. Insofar as the relations between the two. Most whites who have been active in the civil rights struggle were active, were more active as long as all of the activity was in the South, because most of the support that Negroes have gotten, much of the support, I should say the Negroes have gotten from whites, has come from whites, from Negroes, has come from whites here in the north. No, as long as the Freedom Rides and the sit ins and these other embarrassing things were going on in the South, then the Negro could expect the support of the whites in the North. But as soon as the struggle shifted and they began to try and destroy some of the rigid segregation that was going on here in the north, much of the white support decrease and some of that white support turned into white opposition. So I think that the Negro also will reevaluate not only the type of support that he's been getting from the whites in the north, but he will find himself even reevaluating the motive behind the support of the white women to not.

Archie. Dr. Archie Crouch from the Ecumenical Committee.

Your remarks. And the discussion indicate. The problem of strategy and how. It was a sign of the nonviolent movements in the. At a particular point in history achieved a certain result. Some of this is being attempted among the Negroes in the United States. The nonviolent use of force to bring about changes in. And power structure. So evidently your position now is that in our situation at this particular point in history, that this would not and will not be effective and we have to retaliate against power and authority with law enforcement force against violence or violence?

I don't think yes, if I understood you correctly, I don't think the nonviolent approach actually is an approach that depends upon tapping the moral consciousness of the one who's brutalizing you. That person's moral consciousness is already gone. Uncle Sam is bankrupt when it comes to a moral consciousness. And this is what the Negroes are beginning to see. If Uncle Sam had a sense of morality, then it perhaps would be possible to to reach it on a moral level or with moral strategy or moral tactics. But you're dealing with a man whose morals are gone. And I think it's logical to assume that this had to be. And I heard someone say somewhere that power corrupts and absolute power makes one absolutely corrupt. Well, no one has more absolute power than Uncle Sam. And he has. And it has made him absolutely corrupt. Whenever you find a people who set themselves up to determine whether or not another people should be free, they have set themselves up as God. They think it is up to them to determine, is this man qualified for freedom or justice or equality now? This is what has blinded Uncle Sam. And in the in by being in a position to determine whether others should be free, what Uncle Sam has done without realizing it, it has also put him in a position to determine what is right or what is wrong. And by by being morally corrupt, his corrupt mind is making him make right look wrong and wrong. Look right. He's not in a moral position even to day to determine between right and wrong what is good for him. He makes that right and what is bad for him. He makes that wrong. Now.

Let's call this question. If this this strategy is developed. You've already suggested that because of the preponderance of white power that the Negroes of America, you know, could try to fight back and be completely crushed. You know, largely white dog and this could happen. And you're saying that even if it does, this is the way a man has to react without trying to assess the results in history.

I think there came a time in the life of Samson when he found himself to be the underdog, but yet he was willing to pull down the pillars, knowing that in dying himself, the one who was more criminally was the one who was criminally responsible for his bad side, would also go with him and then not be in a position to further corrupt the other peoples of this earth. The there was a time when the black man in this country was the minority. When you find usually those whose struggle is at the civil rights level, they look upon themselves as Americans. They see themselves on the American stage and as such. It's the white stage, which means they are outnumbered. They are the minority. They are the underdog. And their entire approach to the struggle is that of an underdog. Whereas you find those whose philosophy is black nationalism don't see themselves as Americans. They don't see the problem confined to the shores of America. The stage that they see is the world. And know, though, on the American stage, the black man is a minority and the victim of those who have the power on the world stage. The non-whites are the majority and the whites are the minority. And this type of thinking that's going on in black people today enables them to see their struggle as part of a world struggle, not as part of a struggle that's confined to the shores of America. And for this reason, we don't feel that Uncle Sam is in any power position. He while he's in a power position. When you look at yourself as being in his house, but when you look at yourself as being part of a people on the and on the world stage, then he no more looms as a giant in the eyesight of those who formerly were midgets. It's just a different situation altogether. And where this nonviolence is concerned. Nonviolence to the nonviolence has been a secret weapon not for Negroes, but for whites, because there were all the white men has done with the philosophy of nonviolence, has fixed the man who would be fighting him so that he can't fight him. He has cycled him. He has defeated him psychologically. And as long as the Negro is suffering and is the victim of brutality and the man who is victimizing him knows that the Negro will do nothing but continue to love him and continue to pray for him or turn the other cheek to him. Why you have already won the battle against that man. And so anyone who advocates nonviolence in a struggle, which actually is involving warfare for freedom, then the one who advocates that the Negroes in this country is still in the Negro down the river has sold him down the river. Also, I would like to add to this, too. In India, it was all right with Gandhi. It probably was all right, because he had 400 million dark skinned Indians against, I think, about 100,000 Europeans. Well, this is. Like a huge dark elephant pulling a sit down nonviolently on a little white mouse. It's easy for an elephant to sit down on a mouse nonviolently. But in this country, you have a different situation. You have 22 million Afro-Americans against 100 and proximately 150 or 160 million whites. Now, this is a little dark skinned mouse going to sit down on a big white elephant. You just don't have the same situation. What was good for Gandhi and the people of India will never suffice in the struggle of the black people in this country in their struggle for freedom.

All right. May I ask a threefold question? First and foremost what had just become apparent. Does this somewhat stem from. The Muslim idea of the use of the sword in terms of the propagation of. What you consider to be true. Secondly, what is your feeling with regard to intermarriage between. The colored community on the one hand and the white. On the other. Thirdly, what is your attitude in terms of a strategy such as in Detroit where attempts were made and are being made to establish within white communities? Certain families to establish a beachhead toward a non segregated community?

Well, number one, I don't think that Islam as a religion was ever spread by the sword. I think that this is a fallacy, that it stems from the propaganda of the West. Islam is a word in itself that means submission. You can't make a person be a muslim. You can't make a person pray. You can't make a person do right. Whenever you make them do right, they're not doing right. When you make a person believe in a God, he still doesn't believe in it. God, one's relationship with his God must be voluntarily. It must be. It must be done willingly. And then it's done sincerely. And it's the lasting relationship. So that the idea that has been rejected here in the West, that the religion of Islam was spread by the sword is a fallacy. When you study the history from the Muslim historian's point of view, you get a different picture. I imagine it's the same as if you study the the history of the war between England and the American revolutionaries. You get a different view of it from England side than you get from from from the side over here. They don't call George Washington a patriot. You know, they call him a traitor or something of that sort. Well, it's the same situation with with the Muslims. When you read about Muslim history that has been written by Christians, you actually don't get an objective look at the picture. I don't think you would. And I wouldn't blame them for not telling it fairly. The. Religion of Islam spread naturally in Africa and Asia. But when it hit Europe, it ran into a stone wall. It seemed that the Europeans didn't go for the something in their nature that I think didn't fit into the scheme of things where Islam was concerned. They seem to have a tendency by nature to go for Christianity more. So then they went for Islam and this caused the clash. And I.