|Home | Contact us | Links | Archives | Search|
Refutation of Addis Voice Dictatorial and Barbaric Ethos – Part II
By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
September 3, 2007
A Call for Oromo Sponsorship of two Oromo teenagers
Before you read this article, especially if you are Oromo national, you are reminded to read A Call of Help: Save Two Young Tormented Oromo refugees (http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard/Article/A-Call-of-Help--Save-Two-Young-Tormented-Oromo-Refugees-/38940) and come to their help, by presenting yourself as sponsor for the young boys who face deportation after September 23, 2007. Any person willing to help should contact the President and/or the Secretary General of the Oromo Refugee Community in Cairo (website: http://oromocairo.jeeran.com/ / email: email@example.com / mobile: + 2012 2917839) as soon as possible. Do not let the two Oromo teenagers of Cairo end up in the Hell of the Abyssinian jails!
Refuting further points in Mr. Abebe Gelaw’s letter
Point 3. By calling my articles ‘controversial’, Mr. Gelaw achieves nothing else, except to make it clear that I gain support from some people as much as I provoke negative feelings among others; in other words, Mr. Gelaw proves through this statement of his that Abyssinia is indeed divided in two groups, with the minority of the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinians being rejected by the oppressed Ethiopian majority, namely the Oromos, the Ogadenis, the Sidamas, the Afars, the Shekachos, the Gambellas and others (70 - 72 % of the entire population).
With the Ethiopian Kushites expressing positive views about my articles, and the Abyssinian Semites rejecting me, my ‘controversial’ articles are the best proof that the fabrication ‘Ethiopia’ was never united, and therefore I never had any possibility of eventually ‘dividing’ it.
Point 4. Further on, Mr. Abebe Gelaw embarks on an effort to quote American Chronicle Editorial Board Contributor Policy, trying to prove that my publications do not respect it; he quotes a brief excerpt from the link ‘Submit Your Work’ (http://www.americanchronicle.com/notices/submit_work.asp). Quite unfortunately, he falls short of properly reading and plainly understanding the American Chronicle Editorial Board Contributor Policy (http://www.americanchronicle.com/notices/contributor_policy.asp), a very analytical and quite clear text.
Mr. Gelaw failed to understand that my style can be categorized as ‘vigorous discussion’ and that this is welcome in a democratic forum (“The American Chronicle family of online publications is dedicated to a vigorous discussion of the issues of the day, whether political, educational, social, cultural, artistic or civic.”).
Factual accuracy is not hatred
Mr. Gelaw did not understand that I never attacked personally either Dictator Meles Zenawi or Kinijit leader Hailu Shawul; I stated always facts before denouncing these persons’ political attitudes and attempts. I did not name Zenawi a ‘Dictator’ but only after repeatedly exposing him for reported violations of Human Rights. Thus, I acted in full accordance with the Contributor Policy that stipulates that “all submissions be truthful and civil, and that they be free of personal attacks and hate speech”.
When I say that Kinijit leader Hailu Shawul was friend and minister of the bestial communist butcher Haile Mengistu who massacred 1.5 million innocent Kushitic Ethiopians on the altar of his ideal, ‘communist’ and Amharanized society, I am not either profane or factually inaccurate, which is to be avoided according to the American Chronicle Editorial Board Contributor Policy.
Mr. Abebe Gelaw makes a confusion between ‘hatred’ and ‘indignation and rejection of a certain policy’.
Castigating a political tradition, policy and / or system, and describing it as ‘Neo-Nazi’ has nothing to do with ‘hatred’; as a feeling, hatred is and much be absent from a level of politics some are incapacitated to comprehend.
Neo - Nazism is real, exists, and does not concern Germany only. As the Neo -Nazis in Germany want to revive the political heritage of Hitler, Neo - Nazis in other parts of the world want to revive equally abhorrent and obsolete systems.
If we search for a definition of the Neo - Nazism in order to identify the rudimentary ingredients, we find in wikipedia a commonly accepted approach, namely that “The specific policies of neo-Nazi groups differ, but they often include allegiance to Adolf Hitler, anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia (towards non-whites), nationalism, white supremacy, militarism and homophobia”.
Why the Kinijit Amharas are utterly Neo – Nazis.
All these elements are encountered in the ideology of the Amhara Kinijit party; they are deeply racist, and they do not even mention by name the oppressed peoples and nations of Abyssinia.
Deep inside them, the Amhara neo-Nazis do not accept the event itself of the existence of the Oromos, the Sidamas, the Afars, the Ogadenis, and the others.
They want to keep viewing the outright majority of the totalitarian country as stuff they have the right to manipulate, transform and shape according to their will; this means they never resigned from the idea of ultimately – through unprecedented tyranny – amharanizing them all!
Kinijit Amharas are convinced that the other peoples’ Values do not exist, and that Abyssinia’s oppressed people are barbaric, and that the only possible perspective for them is to get amharanized.
This is unadulterated racism and hinges on the theory of Amhara supremacy – key element of the Amhara Neo Nazism.
Pathetic Amhara Messianic Nationalism
The Amhara nationalism is one of the most dangerous and the most anachronistic of the sort; intertwined with Monophysitic Christian eschatology and Messianism, it hinges on the erroneous interpretation of the Biblical passages (Psalm 67, 32) “and Ethiopia will stretch its hand to God” (Septuaginta: Athiopia profthasei heira autes to Theo).
The misinterpretation is double; first it involves Abyssinia as invading power of Ethiopia (Destruction of Meroe around 370 CE). Only through this event, Abyssinia could be possibly concerned and considered ‘Ethiopia’. Second, it elucidates the “stretching” of Ethiopia’s hand as Abyssinia’s conversion to …. Christianity! This is comical and preposterous, because that event (Abyssinia’s conversion to Christianity) antedates the Abyssinian invasion of Ethiopia!
Yet, the context lets us understand that the text refers rather to the End of Time, and of course not to Abyssinia but to Ethiopia (in Hebrew: Kush). On this dreadful and absurd distortion of the Biblical text, the Amhara Abyssinian “superiority” has been established, and due to this theoretical background, massive populations have been massacred.
Amhara Supremacy: the Epitome of Inhuman Racism
The Amhara supremacy involves total racial differentiation, namely the theory that the Amharas are ‘white’, not Black, and not African. This automatically entitles anyone to characterize Amharas and Tigrays as alien and outlandish in Africa.
Xenophobia is detected in the case of oppression of the various Kushitic cultures, and in the hysteria by which the monarchical, the communist and the pseudo-federal / bogus-republican Abyssinian regimes attempted to eradicate the democratic and egalitarian systems of social rule, law and administration of the Kushitic peoples, notably the Oromos and the Sidamas.
Instead of discovering in the Kushitic systems the democratic nature of a healthy society, and copying / transferring the systems within the context of their own Amhara and Tigray hierarchical, authoritarian and anachronistic societies, the xenophobic Abyssinians spared no effort in order to dictatorially eradicate these systems.
This pernicious attempt has been at the epicenter of the Ethiopian (Kushitic) – Abyssinian (Semitic) clashes; if one refers to existing Amhara and Tigray literature against the Oromos, and the other Kushitic peoples, one is shocked by the racist, discriminatory and inhuman language that is used.
An odd form of Anti-Semitism does characterize as well the Abyssinian Amharas in the sense of a self-denial; identity self-denial (which involves the use of the name Ethiopia instead of the proper term Abyssinia) serves the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinian elites in perpetuating their Abyssinian Semitic political, cultural, educational, behavioural and social control over the Kushitic Ethiopian peoples who are constrained to ‘admit’ that they have to abolish their Ethiopian identity and culture in order to survive within this fake and alien, abyssinianized ‘Ethiopia’.
I fully abide by the American Chronicle Editorial Board Contributor Policy.
At this point, I want to express my full approbation and my esteem for the American Chronicle Editorial Board Contributor Policy. I am impressed by the extent, the clarity and the accuracy of the text.
I am sure that Mr. Abebe Gelaw failed to fully understand the AmChron sentence that specifies what ‘hate speech’ may be; I quote from the aforementioned link:
“Hate Speech and Personal Attacks Will Not Be Tolerated. Hate Speech is bigoted attacking or disparaging of a social or ethnic group, or a member of such a group. It is hostility and aversion usually deriving from ignorance, fear, anger, or a sense of injury”.
I have no prejudice against Abyssinia; on the contrary. In several books of mine, I spoke about the significance of the Abyssinian Axumite civilization.
The modern Abyssinians misinterpreted it, and by invading foreign peoples, occupying foreign lands, spreading terror, and implementing inhuman oppression became Africa’s most loathsome, backward, underdeveloped and impoverished country.
Amharas should limit themselves in Gondar.
It would be far better for the Amharas to limit themselves around the lake Tana, and setup a modern Amhara Republic, leaving the other peoples in peace, and offering the Amhara Muslims full rights of citizens equal to the Christians.
Castigating the totalitarian methods and the chauvinistic militarism of an isolated nation like the Amharas, who never challenged their traditions, never sought a change, a reassessment and an improvement is not “bigoted attacking or disparaging”.
My rejection of the Amhara totalitarianism is not the primordial fact, and Western readers with little knowledge about Eastern Africa must understand this; I am not the first to castigate the Abyssinian cruelty on foreign soil invaded.
Local peoples, invaded and tyrannized by the Amharas (and more recently by the Tigrays), castigated Abyssinian inhumanity, intolerance, and racism first. And for many long decades; for many long decades during which the unrepresentative and criminal Abyssinian ambassadors whose prejudicial behaviour damaged the cause of Abyssinia’s oppressed peoples.
The unrepresentative Abyssinian ambassadors’ deep-seated ill-will
The criminal and unrepresentative Abyssinian ambassadors allover the world expressed “bigoted attacking or disparaging” against Abyssinia’s oppressed peoples, the Sidamas, the Ogadenis, the Shekachos, the Oromos, the Afars, the Gambellas and all the other non Abyssinian nations.
Instead of servicing the outright majority of their country, the gangster-like ambassadors of Abyssinia promote racism, hatred, disparaging, disregard, contempt, hostility, and degrading against the majority of their own people, all those whom they do not consider as ‘their people’ but as occupied masses useful for exploitation and murderous cultural disfigurement.
The unrepresentative Abyssinian ambassadors’ hatred of nations invaded by Abyssinia
The criminal Abyssinian ambassadors diffuse the idea that the Sidamas are uncultured and barbaric, and they need to get civilized through amharanization.
They never studied or learned Sidamuaffo, Afaan Oromo, and some of the other languages of Abyssinia’s oppressed peoples. They are concerned by the perspicacious comment that AmChron management had it included in the aforementioned text, namely “It is hostility and aversion usually deriving from ignorance, fear, anger, or a sense of injury”.
Abebe Gelaw does not know the Great and Lofty Values of the Shekachos, the Sidamas, the Ogadenis, the Oromos and the other oppressed peoples of Abyssinia.
Contrarily to my writing, Mr. Abebe Gelaw’s texts reflect “ignorance, fear, anger, or a sense of injury”; even worse, not only he does not know, but actually he does not want to know the Great and Lofty Values of the Shekachos, the Sidamas, the Ogadenis, the Oromos and the other oppressed peoples of Abyssinia because for him these people are the stuff of the Neo Nazi amharanization process that Kinijit promises to implement when rejecting to name – let alone support – Abyssinia’s numerous oppressed peoples.
When Kinijit members speak against federalism, they imply – what unaware and uninformed Western readers cannot immediately catch – eradication of all the oppressed nations of the country by means of amharanization.
Nurnberg Trials needed for Amhara perpetrators of Genocide
That is why they hate me and try to prevent me from illuminating issues that are critically important for the West to know, and ultimately solve. It is impossible that 61 years after the Nurnberg Trials we tolerate in Africa a situation compared to which Nazi Germany is only a pale example.
On the other hand, I fully agree with the definition of Vitriol the AmChron management provides: “Vitriol is language of extreme bitterness and malignancy of temper. It includes rancor (deep-seated ill-will) and/or spiteful, poisonous, or noxious language”. Never did my texts include “deep-seated ill-will” against the Amharas and the Tigrays; Mr. Abebe Gelaw fails again to understand that my willingness to put a definite and irreversible dead end to the criminal existence of a fallaciously named tyranny and to ultimately break down Abyssinia does not consist in a “deep-seated ill-will”.
It is an auspicious willingness to see the Horn of Africa region organized in a great number of free, independent, democratic states that, sticking to their cultures and lofty values, work together towards peace, progress, knowledge, and prosperity, fully implementing the respect of Humanism and Human Rights in that part of the world.
Break down Fake Ethiopia: the Most Auspicious Project in Africa
No one would say that breaking down Nazi Germany and eliminating the criminals who run that country is “deep-seated ill-will”. “Deep-seated ill-will” is before all the rest the formation of a country like Nazi Germany or the Abyssinian monarchy; “deep-seated ill-will” was precisely the expansionist policy of the Amhara rulers who from Menelik II to Haile Selassie attempted to spread their Hell to other peaceful peoples living around them.
Point 5. To support his claims, Mr. Abebe Gelaw mentions two recent articles of mine "Refutation of the Kinijit Neo-Nazi Amhara Abyssinians" and 'The Real Face of the Kinijit Neo-Nazi 'Ethiopian'. To mention an article’s title as proof of hate speech is at least comical; one should indicate passages, excerpts, a few successive paragraphs that would eventually provide the evidence. A title cannot help, because it is precisely a very brief epigram, aiming to highlight the article’s main point.
Who could say that a title like "Refutation of the Republican Neo-Nazi Americans" consists in well documented evidence of “hate speech”? It may certainly describe epigrammatically a topic in a very marked manner, but this is not a proof that the author expanded in hate speech.
This means that Mr. Abebe Gelaw failed to provide substantial evidence for the claims he introduced. Then why protesting? The answer is simple; in these two articles, I interrupted my analysis of Kinijit texts, which definitely and comprehensively help us conclude about the Neo-Nazi (or even better Neo-Stalinist) nature of the Amhara political party, in order to publish and analyze a letter sent to me by a high level Kinijit member who under anonymity coverage thought he would not be uncovered.
His lewd and coarse style and expressions highlight in the best possible way my description of the Amhara uneducated and uncultured elites that have long been known in the Horn of Africa region for their totalitarian and inhuman mindset and mentality. The shock ensuing from the revelation of what sort of people intend to rule Abyssinia again was tremendous. The reaction should be expected.
A picture is worth a thousand words
However, I find it is very indicative of Mr. Abebe Gelaw’s real beliefs and ideas that he did not say anything about the picture published in one of the two articles he mentions; that picture showed the typical Amhara government deeds: dozens of people hanging dead in the squares of Abyssinian cities at the times of Mengistu.
As at those days, the current Kinijit leader, Mr. Hailu Shawul, was a minister, my counter suggestion is that Mr. Abebe Gelaw publishes in AmChron an extraordinary interview with Mr. Hailu Shawul about his involvement in these deeds.
As the American Chronicle management felt obliged to answer, Mr. Abebe Gelaw sent a second mail with more focus on some excerpts of my texts that had been meanwhile highlighted to him by another Amhara reader whose mail was also sent to the AmChron management as evidence. I will publish the AmChron answer first, comment on it, and then proceed with the refutation of Mr. Abebe Gelaw’s second text.
American Chronicle answer to Mr. Abebe Gelaw – sent on 24 August
Dear Abebe Gelaw,
We are investigating your complaint and will get back to you. Thank you for alerting us to this.
Can you please provide us with additional information? As you know, Dr. Megalommatis’s articles are opinion articles and he (and you) are entitled to express opinions. Nevertheless, we do not want writers on our site to violate our policy. Can you please identify for us more specifically how the articles violate the policy? We are cc’ing the author on this as well for his information and response.
When we receive a negative comment about an article we always forward the letter to the author for a reaction and we also investigate the claim. We are not very familiar with the conflict he writes about but we have received many, many letters in support of Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis. We are concerned that you are calling the comments he makes “hate speech” because you disagree with his statements and not because the comments are motivated by hate. For example, there are many opinion articles on our site that offer opposing and supporting views to the war in Iraq. These articles also offer criticism or compliments to the people of Iraq for their efforts to bring about an end to the war. We would not agree that those who favor one side or the other side of the war in Iraq are expressing hate or violating our policy. These writers are simply expressing their opinion about the war and the leadership’s way of dealing with the war. Allowing free speech even on topics with which we may disagree is the American way.
Nevertheless, if an article violates our policy, we will remove it from our site. Our policy is the strictest policy we know. We also know that the majority of news and opinion sites on the Internet have no such policies. But we will stick to our policy because we value our policy.
In your letter to us, you have not specifically identified how or why the articles in question violate our policy. Quotations from the articles followed by a brief explanation about why the statement(s) violate our policy would help. In your letter, you only state that you disagree with the comments made and you do not state specifically why. So more information would be helpful. If we agree with you that the articles violate our policy, we will delete or modify the articles and place the author on a “watch” list. We would then thank you for alerting us to this author’s violations of our policy, especially since he may be writing about topics with which we may be unfamiliar.
Since we are an American site we value free speech. If you, someone you know, or anyone else on the email list wants to submit an article or articles directly refuting what the author has said, or if you want to submit articles that speak on behalf of your issues, we will be very glad to post them to our site and give them prominence. In the meantime, we will investigate your claims against the author and if you could provide us with the specific information about the policy violations, that would help.
Thanks for your attention.
My comments about AmChron editor’s reaction
I believe the AmChron stance was pertinent and considerable; anytime an accusation like that surfaces, a conscious editor has to investigate the issue.
I only what to highlight the following excerpt “In your letter to us, you have not specifically identified how or why the articles in question violate our policy.”, which is in full agreement with my earlier comment, namely that with simple reference to titles of articles you cannot convince anyone about an author’s inclination to hate speech.
In addition, I must express my utmost satisfaction for the way and the expressions through which Jorge underscored AmChron’s scrupulous attachment to American Humanist and Democratic Values that have become universal.
The refutation of Eliab Tarkghen’s accusations and of Mr. Abebe Gelaw’s second letter will be the topic a next – third – article.
I offer Mr. Gelaw another chance to express Amhara apologies for the deeds of the government to which belonged the present leader of Kinijit, Mr. Hailu Shawul.
Source: American Chronicle