We cannot quite recall exactly when it was we started to tune in to “protest” radio, in particular, the “conscious” station. We used to attend the “meetings” but no longer. We rarely even hail the others we see – they are people that we used to know. Even today, we are quite reluctant to listen to broadcasts, never mind call in, as we see the broadcasts as a farcical. Nevertheless, between January 2012 and January 2013, we hosted a “show” on a West London platform, broadcasting to the public, on Tuesday afternoons. This lasted for a year, but was with its difficulties. In particular, we had a couple disagreements with “management”, questioning the degree to which they were “serious” and “focussed.” Much rather, they had a problem. They found us to be “eccentric.” They concluded that we were “intelligent” but needed to value our “leaders.” Earlier, they had complained suggesting that our broadcasts were missing some direction and structure however, later on, their argument evolved. They came to take exception to our comments on leadership. This was because, we challenged the popular rhetoric and cherished convictions. We said that these icons and their accompanying images, whilst assuring and comforting, were unimportant. We said that whilst their memories may soothe us, there legacies are not apparent. In sum, we said, these “stories” were irrelevant. Our argument was quite simply, it does not matter how far I have some if I still have so far to go. Likewise, I cannot concern myself with the best efforts at escape if I remain in a cell and so, unless we were going to use these previous efforts to update or contrive a plan, to even mention them was to delude ourselves.
Peoples preferred the dream. They didn’t want me to delve into these characters and identities and so there was a split. There were some listeners who took to this “refreshing” approach, and scholastic bias, by meeting us with praise and gratitude. Meanwhile, there were others who saw our effort as “prehistoric”, akin to taking people through a “museum” tour. (It was intriguing but didn’t provide us with anything to take away.) In fact, it seemed to be that they were suggesting we were “abstract.” Finally, there was another critique: apparently, in addition to “attacking” the concept of “community” and “leaders”, we were quoting “James Baldwin.” To his credit, we praised Baldwin for “defeating” Minister Malcolm in their debate (which was more a panel discussion.) It was not that Baldwin was “articulate” but “sharp”, and we recognised that. (Oba Shaka said this.) We found this useful in as much as seeing our “heroes” defeated gets us to reflect. American getting whooped by Vietnam got them “thinking” (although, in a typically British fashion, they will belittle this defeat so as the maintain their psychological superiority-selfhood.) In short, we were told to stop referring Baldwin and to stop attacking leaders. We might say that to some extent, this was useful . Another maestro at the station said that we needed to uplift the people who already are bitter and defeated whilst a caller suggested that we were speaking down to people. (Another suggested we were not enthusiastic.) In time, we came to work with these comments, and work alongside the callers; the people.
During our broadcasts, we sometimes clashed with a caller who spoke about “spirituality”. Those who “know” us know that we have no patience for the “spooky stuff” seeing it as an alternative to the typical escape of sex. We have always found the concept to be ill-defined and conveniently, poorly judged. Our critique is outlined as follows: We rarely, for instance, ever hear anyone linking spirituality to morality, but moreover, have yet to see people who compliment this evolutionary consciousness with concrete challenges to the existing regime, and status quo, every day in their walking life. It is as if this “hysterical” comfort is an excuse for serious study, hence, why we refuse to entertain this “melanin magic”, and ignore those who even mention it. People like Manu Ampin, have answers, without saying we have a special connection with the “most high” but instead, we “believe” in the “Willie Lynch” speech. For these reasons, we sometimes clashed with this caller, however, this isn’t to pretend that we were the enemy of the people. We had many supporters. Our problem, however, was with the seriousness of these people, rather than the resistance and opposition. Our “problem” then, was with our “friends” rather than our “enemies.” Those who “liked” us did not seem to take this sympathy further. Instead, we still had people asking us about a “solution” rather than accepting our concept of seriousness. We had people calling us “intelligent” but still not taking on board our concept of “seriousness.” We HAVE people who like our language-focus, but still do not quite seem serious. This remains our issue. Those who study, do so for play, whilst those who are not that way inclined, only play.