Colin Kaepernick(Kappa Alpha Psi)- Boule Negros and Fake Black Consciousness

Colin1..

Colin5...

The picture above is of NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick receiving the Muhammad Ali Legacy award from Sports Illustrated.  He was presented the award by singer Beyoncé this past Tuesday.  The event was the 2017 Sportsperson of the Year Awards in New York. I did a post about a year ago stating that the Kaepernick protest was all staged.  It was staged by the European elite who control the NFL. Colin is not about black liberation.  He is there to confuse black people into thinking he’s fighting for them.  It was to cause more racial division/tension and distract the masses of Americans.  He helped to distract people from a possible war with North Korea a nd also the fact that many of out civil liberties are being taken away.  Two things that always get a person’s attention: Sex and Race.   I don’t think many black people realize how much of this is orchestrated.  What you see in the mainstream media is all filtered for your eyes.  The “Kaepernick operation” is no different.

Ali...

This photo(above) is of Muhammad Ali in Africa back in 1974.  When he had the Rumble in the Jungle fight.

Colin4...

Now look at this recent photoshoot of Colin for GQ magazine.  He took this picture in Harlem.  Wearing a dashiki???  Hmmmm….that looks familiar.

Colin2...

This is a great video(above) by Black Child.  He is really good at decoded signs and symbols used in movies and television shows.  In this video he exposes the fact that Colin is a fraud.  Colin is in the college fraternity Kappa Alpha Psi.  These fraternities are controlled by the Jewish/white elite.  If you join the fraternity they allow certain black and biracial people to get attain fame and fortune.  Some of the familiar names are men like Cedric the Entertainer,Arthur Ashe,John Singleton,Oscar Robertson,Bill Russell,Stan Lathan,Vernon Jones,Marc Lamont Hill,Tavis Smiley and yes even Johnnie Cochran.

http://www.lakappaalphapsi.org/fraternity/notable-kappas/

Kappa...

I did the post in the hope that black people can truly raise their consciousness.  I’ve seen  a lot of black people on Facebook and Twitter calling Kaepernick a hero.  Apparently a lot of our people think they’re “woke” by appearing to be pro-black.  But they’ve bought into the deception they’ve been given.  Colin is nothing but controlled opposition.  He is own and controlled by the very people many people think he’s fighting against.  He speaks about racism and police brutality.  But he answers to the very same people that are the most racist.  All his activism is an act. This biracial dude has so many of you fooled.  Many of you really think he’s about black pride,black power and being Afrocentric. Going around sporting an afro and wearing dashikis.  But I’m not falling for it.  I’m hip to the game. I know this is hard for many to accept. Black people always look at things at face value.  But when you’re in a war you have to look beneath the surface.  It’s important that we use our critical thinking skills when examining white supremacy.  White supremacy is very refined at the moment.  The best way to combat a movement is to control yourself.  Colin protesting the national anthem is no different than the white-controlled Black Lives Matter movement.  Some people say it’s important to know who are your real friends.  Others say you should keep your enemies close.  I think it’s also important to know who acts like a friend but is an undercover enemy. The type of low life snake plotting your downfall or leading you down a path of destruction.

Meghan Markle: Redefining Black female identity?

Meghan5....jpg

Since there’s so much talk about biracial actress Meghan Markle,here’s a few pictures and videos.  Some peopel ahve told me they aren’t familiar with her. Some think she might turn out to be some so-called pro-black mulatto like Jesse Williams or Colin Kaepernick.  But I can assure you she is nothing of the sort.  Especially once you know her background.These videos and pictures should give you a better since what Markle is really about.  Her upcoming wedding to Prince Harry is not a win for black women. And not for black people as a whole either.  The royals achieved  their wealth and power through murdering and enslaving African people. And shouldn’t be celebrated at all.

Meghan4...

Markle as a child pictured with her father, Thomas Markle and nephew.

Meghan3..

Meghan2..

This photo(above) is of Markle as the homecoming queen in high school. She attended the private,Catholic, Immaculate Heart High school in Los Angeles.

Meghan1...

This photo(above) is Markle at Northwestern University in Illinois.  Markle was in the sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma. Were there any black women in the sorority?  Doesn’t look like it to me.

Meghan2...

Here’s a recent picture(above) of Markle and her mother,Doria Radlan.

Meghan6...

Some people are not aware that Markle is divorced.  This picture(above) is of her ex-husband film producer Trevor Engelson.

Markle..

This is a picture(above) of Markle with ex-boyfriend Canadian chef  Cory Vitiello.  Reports say she was dating Vitiello at the time,when she met prince Harry.  They say Harry asked for her phone number.  Next thing you know…Vitiello is a memory.  Guess she wanted to move up in the world.   I can’t seem to find any pictures of her with black boyfriends.  So I will assume she never dated any.  Markle has said in an interview that she is an “other”.  Even though she has a black mother,her life in Los Angeles seems primarily white.  Her parents divorced when she was sic years old. Her private high school was mostly white too.  So I would say she’s a mixed race woman that is more white-idenitified than anything else.  The fact that she is now marrying a so-called royal is nothing to get excited about.  I hoped this post gave you a better understanding of Markle and her upbringing.  She’s not one of us.

African textured hair is sexy!!

African Hair1..

Natural beauty...

African Hair..

Arabs enslaving Africans: How did this happen?(Graphic pics)

Libya3...

In March 2011, NATO launched a war in Libya expressly aimed at toppling the government of longtime leader Muammar Qadhafi. The US and its allies flew some 26,000 sorties over Libya and launched hundreds of cruise missiles, destroying the government’s ability to resist rebel forces.

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with their European counterparts, insisted the military intervention was being carried out for humanitarian reasons. But political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy3/22/16) used NATO’s own materials to show how “the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.”

NATO supported an array of rebel groups fighting on the ground in Libya, many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently racist views. Militants in the NATO-backed rebel stronghold of Misurata even referred to themselves in 2011 as “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin”—an eerie foreshadowing of the horrors that were to come.

The war ended in October 2011. US and European aircraft attacked Qadhafi’s convoy, and he was brutally murdered by extremist rebels—sodomized with a bayonet. Secretary Clinton, who played a decisive role in the war, declared live on CBS News (10/20/11), “We came, we saw, he died!” The Libyan government dissolved soon after.

In the six years since, Libya has been roiled by chaos and bloodshed. Multiple would-be governments are competing for control of the oil-rich country, and in some areas there is still no functioning central authority. Many thousands of people have died, although the true numbers are impossible to verify. Millions of Libyans have been displaced—a staggering number, nearly one-third of the population, had fled to neighboring Tunisia by 2014.

Corporate media, however, have largely forgotten about the key role NATO played in destroying Libya’s government, destabilizing the country and empowering human traffickers.

Moreover, even the few news reports that do acknowledge NATO’s complicity in the chaos in Libya do not go a step further and detail the well-documented, violent racism of the NATO-backed Libyan rebels who ushered in slavery after ethnically cleansing and committing brutal crimes against black Libyans.

Libya4...

The flashy CNN multimedia report included bonuses galore: two videos, two animated gifs, two photos and a chart. But something was missing: The 1,000-word story made no mention of NATO, or the 2011 war that destroyed Libya’s government, or Muammar Qadhafi, or any kind of historical and political context whatsoever.

Despite these huge flaws, the CNN report was widely celebrated, and made an impact in a corporate media apparatus that otherwise cares little about North Africa. A flurry of media reports followed. These stories overwhelmingly spoke of slavery in Libya as an apolitical and timeless human rights issue, not as a political problem rooted in very recent history.

In subsequent stories, when Libyan and United Nations officials announced they would launch an investigation into the slave auctions, CNN (11/17/1711/20/17) again failed to mention the 2011 war, let alone NATO’s role in it.

One CNN report (11/21/17) on a UN Security Council meeting noted, “Ambassadors from Senegal to Sweden also blamed trafficking’s root causes: unstable countries, poverty, profits from slave trading and lack of legal enforcement.” But it failed to explain why Libya is unstable.

Another 1,200-word CNN follow-up article (11/23/17) was just as obfuscatory. It was only in the 35th paragraph of this 36-graf story that a Human Rights Watch researcher noted, “Libyan interim authorities have been dragging their feet on virtually all investigations they supposedly started, yet never concluded, since the 2011 uprising.” NATO’s leadership in this 2011 uprising was, however, ignored.

An Agence France-Presse news wire that was published by Voice of America (11/17/17) and other websites similarly failed to provide any historical context for the political situation in Libya. “Testimony collected by AFP in recent years has revealed a litany of rights abuses at the hands of gang leaders, human traffickers and the Libyan security forces,” the article said, but it did not recount anything that happened before 2017.

Libya5...

In an account of the large protests that erupted outside Libyan embassies in Europe and Africa in response to reports of slave auctions, Reuters (11/20/17) indicated, “Six years after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is still a lawless state where armed groups compete for land and resources and people-smuggling networks operate with impunity.” But it did not provide any more information about how Qadhafi was toppled.

A report in the Huffington Post (11/22/17), later republished by AOL (11/27/17), did concede that Libya is “one of the world’s most unstable [sic], mired in conflict since dictator Muammar Gaddafi was ousted and killed in 2011.” It made no mention of NATO’s leadership in that ousting and killing.

Part of the problem has been the unwillingness of international organizations to point out the responsibility of powerful Western governments. In his statement on the reports of slavery in Libya, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres (11/20/17) did not mention anything about what has happened politically inside the North African nation in the past six years. The UN News Centre report (11/20/17) on Guterres’ comments was just as contextless and uninformative, as was the press release (11/21/17) on the issue from the International Organization for Migration.

Al Jazeera (11/26/17) did cite an IOM official who suggested, in Al Jazeera‘s words, that “the international community should pay more attention to post-Gaddafi Libya.” But the media outlet provided no context as to how Libya became post-Qadhafi in the first place. In fact, Al Jazeera‘s source went out of his way to make the issue apolitical: “Modern-day slavery is widespread around the world and Libya is by no means unique.”

While it is true that slavery and human trafficking happen in other countries, this widespread media narrative depoliticizes the problem in Libya, which has its roots in explicit political decisions made by governments and their leaders: namely, the choice to overthrow Libya’s stable government, turning the oil-rich North African nation into a failed state ruled by competing warlords and militias, some of which are involved in and profit from slavery and trafficking.

When Western governments were hoping to militarily intervene in the country in the lead-up to March 19, 2011, there was a constant torrent of media reports on the evils of Qadhafi and his government—including a healthy dose of fake news (Salon9/16/16). Major newspapers staunchly supported the NATO intervention, and made no secret of their pro-war editorial lines.

When the US government and its allies were preparing for war, the corporate media apparatus did what it does best, and helped sell yet another military intervention to the public.

In the years since, on the other hand, there has been exponentially less interest in the disastrous aftermath of that NATO war. There will be short spikes of interest, as there was in early 2017. The most recent spurt of press coverage was inspired by the publication of CNN‘s shocking video footage. But the coverage invariably rapidly peaks and goes away.

Libya6...

The catastrophe Libya might endure after the collapse of its state had been predictable at the time. Qadhafi himself had warned NATO member states, while they were waging war against him, that they were going to unleash chaos throughout the region. Yet Western leaders—Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the US, David Cameron in the UK, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Stephen Harper in Canada—ignored Qadhafi’s admonition and violently toppled his government.

Even from the small number of media reports on slavery in Libya that do manage to acknowledge NATO’s responsibility for destabilizing the country, nevertheless, something is still missing.

Looking back at Libya’s anti-Qadhafi rebels, both during and after the 2011 war, it is very clear that hardline anti-black racism was widespread in the NATO-backed opposition. A 2016 investigation by the British House of Common’s Foreign Affairs Committee (Salon9/16/16) acknowledged that “militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards.” But many rebels were not just fundamentalist; they were also violently racist.

It is unfortunately no surprise that these extremist Libyan militants later enslaved African refugees and migrants: They were hinting at it from the very beginning.

Most American and European media coverage at the time of NATO’s military intervention was decidedly pro-rebel. When reporters got on the ground, however, they began publishing a few more nuanced pieces that hinted at the reality of the opposition. These were insignificant in number, but they are enlightening and worth revisiting.

Three months into the NATO war, in June 2011, the Wall Street Journal‘s Sam Dagher (6/21/11) reported from Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city and a major hub for the opposition, where he noted he saw rebel slogans like “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.”

Dahger indicated that the rebel stronghold of Misrata was dominated by “tightly knit white merchant families,” whereas “the south of the country, which is predominantly black, mainly backs Col. Gadhafi.”

Other graffiti in Misrata read “Traitors keep out.” By “traitors,” rebels were referring to Libyans from the town of Tawergha, which the Journal explained is “inhabited mostly by black Libyans, a legacy of its 19th-century origins as a transit town in the slave trade.”

Dagher reported that some Libyan rebel leaders were “calling for the expulsion of Tawerghans from the area” and “banning Tawergha natives from ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata.” He added that predominately Tawergha neighborhoods in Misrata had already been emptied. Black Libyans were “gone or in hiding, fearing revenge attacks by Misratans, amid reports of bounties for their capture.”

The rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous told the Journal, “Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata.”

Al-Halbous would later reappear in a report by the Sunday Telegraph (9/11/11), reiterating to the British newspaper, “Tawarga no longer exists.” (When Halbous was injured in September, the New York Times9/20/11—portrayed him sympathetically as a martyr in the heroic fight against Qadhafi. The Halbous brigade has in the years since become an influential militia in Libya.)

Libya7...

Like Dagher, the Telegraph‘s Andrew Gilligan drew attention to the slogan painted on the road between Misrata and Tawergha: “the brigade for purging slaves [and] black skin.”

Gilligan reported from Tawergha, or rather from the remnants of the majority-black town, which he noted had “been emptied of its people, vandalized and partly burned by rebel forces.” A rebel leader said of the dark-skinned residents, “We said if they didn’t go, they would be conquered and imprisoned. Every single one of them has left, and we will never allow them to come back.”

Gilligan noted “a racist undercurrent. Many Tawargas, though neither immigrants nor Gaddafi’s much-ballyhooed African mercenaries, are descended from slaves, and are darker than most Libyans.”

Slavery1...

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization assisted these virulently racist rebels in Misrata. NATO forces frequently launched air attacks on the city. French fighter jets shot down Libyan planes over Misrata. The US and UK fired cruise missiles at Libyan government targets, and the US launched Predator drone strikes. The Canadian air force also attacked Libyan forces, pushing them out of Misrata.

In a public relations video NATO published in May 2011, early in the Libya war, the Western military alliance openly admitted that it intentionally allowed “Libyan rebels to transport arms from Benghazi to Misrata.” Political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy3/22/16) pointed out the implications of this video: “A NATO surface vessel stationed in the Mediterranean to enforce an arms embargo did exactly the opposite, and NATO was comfortable posting a video demonstrating its hypocrisy.”

Throughout the war and after, Libyan rebels continued carrying out racist sectarian attacks against their black compatriots. These attacks have been well documented by mainstream human rights organizations.

Human Rights Watch’s longtime executive director Kenneth Roth cheered on NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, calling the UN Security Council’s unanimous endorsement of a no-fly zone a “remarkable” confirmation of the so-called “responsibility to protect” doctrine.

Roth’s organization, however, could not ignore the crimes anti-Qadhafi militants committed against dark-skinned Libyans and migrants.

In September 2011, when the war was still ongoing, Human Rights Watch reported on Libyan rebels’ “arbitrary arrests and abuse of African migrant workers and black Libyans assumed to be [pro-Qadhafi] mercenaries.”

Then in October, the top US human rights organization noted that Libyan militias were “terrorizing the displaced residents of the nearby town of Tawergha,” the majority-black community that had been a stronghold of support for Qadhafi. “The entire town of 30,000 people is abandoned—some of it ransacked and burned—and Misrata brigade commanders say the residents of Tawergha should never return,” HRW added. Witnesses “gave credible accounts of some Misrata militias shooting unarmed Tawerghans, and of arbitrary arrests and beatings of Tawerghan detainees, in a few cases leading to death.”

Slavery2..

In 2013, HRW reported further on the ethnic cleansing of the black community of Tawergha. The human rights organization, whose chief had so effusively supported the military intervention, wrote: “The forced displacement of roughly 40,000 people, arbitrary detentions, torture and killings are widespread, systematic and sufficiently organized to be crimes against humanity.”

These atrocities are undeniable, and they lead a path straight to the enslavement of African refugees and migrants. But to acknowledge NATO’s complicity in empowering these racist extremist militants, corporate media would have to acknowledge NATO’s role in the 2011 regime change war in Libya in the first place.

Article by Global Research

Prince Harry finds his Mulatto princess: Power move to depopulate Africa?

Royals2..

Social media is going crazy over the news about Prince Harry being engaged to actress Meghan Markle.  It seems many black women and some black men are excited that he is marrying a biracial woman.  They say this is  a big sign of progress for black people.  This is really sad to see this type of mentality is so pervasive.  First things first.  Markle is biracial and not a black woman.  She doesn’t even have any noticeable black features. She looks like she could pass for Puerto Rican of Italian.  And she even says that she is a biracial woman.  But this is NOT black progress.  The British royal family got most of their riches from slavery.  Their wealth comes from the murder and enslavement of African people.  Marrying into this racist parasitic family is not a sign of black empowerment.

Royals1...

Also check out this video(above). I’m not sure if many of you are aware of the fact that Prince William wants to depopulate Africa.  Apparently he believes that that are too many Africans and they’re destroying the ecosystem.  So he says.  So Africans are to blame for the environment.  It’s not the powerful European Jews/Europeans that are putting chemtrails in the air.  It’s not all the toxic garbage they allow to be dumped in the ocean and kills the aquatic life. It’s not all the processed meat,GMO foods and deadly vaccines that are spreading pain and misery.  So it’s the Africans??  Give me a damn break!  This is just a power move to confuse black people.  Prince Harry getting engaged to this half-black woman is just a way to make the masses of black people think the royals are our friends.  To make us think they care about the plight of our people.

Interracial union..

So I hope my subscribers aren’t falling for this.  I would assume that most of you are intelligent to know that this is nothing to celebrate.  Miss Meghan Mulatto marrying this racist family is not helping the African diaspora.  She’s just some biracial gold digging woman who saw an opportunity to marry into a wealthy family.

Reign Entertainment(Black Business series)

BA7...

BA6...

C.E.O./Curator/Creative Director of Reign Entertainment Co. Robyn Willard is an Entrepreneur and Businesswoman owner from Harlem, New York.  At the age of 17, Robyn founded Reign Entertainment Co., an arts & entertainment company that highlights Black excellence through all facets of the arts. From one of a kind paintings by R.E.C. Artist Stephanie Whittaker, to clothing, sneakers and much more.

Robyn Willard is a visionary, an innovator and creative spirit that has engulfed herself in the world of business and entrepreneurial endeavors.
Reign Entertainment Co., is also the umbrella company of two equally thriving subsidiaries:  World Wide Reign Graphics and Reign Entertainment Co. Animation which are redefining the worlds of arts and entertainment.

BA1..BA5..

The purpose of Reign Entertainment Co. is to highlight and restore the value, strength, and beauty within all people of color. The young entrepreneur states, “Somewhere along the way, we as a people have forgotten how epic we are and we must remember the greatness that lives within
us. Now Go Be Great #Great365!”

BA2..BA3...

http://reignentertainmentco.com/home.html