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

Sacred Man

Sacred Man..

Sacred Man: From Boyhood to Manhood to Divine Masculine. A Manhood Manual, compact reference guide. Quoting modern day master teachers, on the spirit, mind & body balance of a new type of evolving warrior. An urban polymath, a conscious renaissance man – A Sacred Man. Full colour book/eBook with over 300 images. Addressing issues on: Male holistic health, Sacred sex, Spiritual growth, Masculine vitality, Herbs and fitness, Defining purpose, Self-development, Rites of passage and more… A Bookshelf essential for: young men, fathers, mothers of son’s, men… and the women who love them.
Sacred Man..
Aundrieux Khonsu Sankofa-EL, Is an educator, inner-city youth mentor specializing in urban rites of passage. He has lived and studied the schools of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, also Buddhist & Hindu meditation. Usui Reiki, Tao spirituality & Tantra. Landmark education self development, NLP, psychology & counselling, holistic health and Khemetic spirituality as taught by master teachers Supreme Grand Master Neter Aaferti Atum Re and Dr. Ra Un Nefer Amen. He lectures on Holistic Health, Ancient African History, The Metaphysics of Hip Hop, and is co-founder of The Manhood Academy for Boys: a rites of passage program, training boys to men in London.… MORE

Muhammad Ali (1942-2016)

Ali4...

Ali3..

Ali2..

Ali5..

Ali7...

Ali6...

Who is Edward Wilmot Blyden?

Edward1

Before there was a Malcolm X, a Kwame Nkrumah, a Marcus Garvey, or a George Padmore, there was Edward Wilmot Blyden, the Father of Pan Africanism.

Edward Wilmot Blyden was born in 1832 in the territories now known as the Virgin Islands. Like most Black men of his day, Blyden’s parents were slaves and descendants of Nigeria’s Nri Kingdom.

From a young age, Blyden demonstrated exceptional intelligence, and by the age of 18, he was prepared for college.

Many of us who come into Pan-Africanism do so because we come to a gradual realization that we were born into a system that was not organized for our benefit. The same could be said of Edward Blyden. When Blyden arrived in the United States to attempt to enroll in Rutgers Theological College, he was denied admission based on race – an event that would change Blyden’ s life forever. Rather than endure the horrors of America during the 1850s, Blyden joined thousands of other Black Americans in moving to the newly established Republic of Liberia. Liberia was then one of only two modern countries in Sub-Saharan Africa without roots in the European colonization of Africa, and was created as a direct result of the Back to Africa Movement.

Pan Am Flag

Shortly after his arrival, Blyden was introduced and married to the niece of Liberia’s Vice President, Hilary Yates, giving him inside access to African politics.

At the ripe old age of 30, Blyden was appointed professor of classics at the newly opened Liberia College, a position he held until 1871. Although Blyden was self-taught after high school, he became ‘an able linguist, classicist, theologian, historian, and sociologist.’ according to biographical references.

From 1871 until 1873, Blyden spent an increasing amount of time in neighboring Sierra Leone as the editor of the world’s first Pan-African magazine titled Negro. This first foray into journalism inspired further writings of genius. “…Blyden, while in Lagos, wrote regularly for the Lagos Weekly Record, one of the earliest propagators of Nigerian and West African nationalism.

He also operated in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where he helped to edit the Sierra Leone News, which he had assisted in founding in 1884 ‘to serve the interests of West Africa…and the [black] race generally.’ He also helped to found and edit there, the Freetown West African Reporter (1874-1882), whose declared aim was, even in those early years, to forge a bond of unity among English-speaking West Africans.” – Source

Blyden would call Liberia his home for the next 30 years, and there he would become a successful Presbyterian minister, a newspaper editor, a renowned professor of classics,  Ambassador to Great Britain, Minister of the Interior, Secretary of State, and a Presidential candidate in 1885.

Although Blyden had been raised in the white Christian Presbyterian church, by 1886 he had completely renounced Christianity and had converted to Islam. The following year, he published his treatise, Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race. In it, Blyden offered a wealth of thought on the reasons Islam was more suited to the needs of Black folk than Christianity. The book was immediately hailed as a masterful achievement, and is still in print and circulation today. According to Blyden,  Christianity demoralized Blacks,whereas Islam was ‘a unifying and elevating influence’.

By then, Blyden had left his home in Liberia to spread his message to the neighboring country of Sierra Leone, holding debates among the indigenous communities that were at risk of being “whitewashed” . He warned them that they had been “de-Africanised “, and to always that “you are Africans”. In Liberia, Blyden had taken on the mantle of state work, but in Sierra Leone, he was free to become the activist that he would become known as.

There were three primary points that Blyden believed could lead to the redemption of African people worldwide:

1. Complete autonomy from White culture, colonialism, and religious influence.

2. The establishment of a major, single, modern African state, which would protect and promote the interests of peoples of African descent everywhere.

3.  The complete adoption of the African personality, including the Islamic faith, in place of Eurocentric mimicry.

Edward2

Such was his dedication to Islam, African culture, and Pan-African thought, that in 1901, Sierra Leone awarded him with the position of Director of Muslim Education –  a billet that he would hold for 5 years. With his position came the responsibility of teaching English to Muslim youths, bridging the divide between Muslims and Christians in Africa, and establishing a harmonious co-existence.

The works of Blyden had a deep, long-lasting impact on one of the greatest Trinidadian journalists to ever live,  George Padmore. Padmore, along with men like Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta, the Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah and South Africa’s Peter Abrahams. Blydens lessons were not lost on the founder of The Negro World, Marcus Garvey either.

Blyden died in Freetown on 7 February1912, at the age of 82. He still has surviving family members in Sierra Leone, who commemorate his anniversary each year.

Today, Blyden’s name is all but forgotten. In celebrating Black History Month, we should remember that it was Blyden who most profoundly impacted men like Carter G. Woodson!

Article from website http://www.panafricanalliance.com/

The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews

Well packaged, the book contains 334 pages of fully documented text including 1,275 footnotes, from more than 3,000 sources. Most of the sources, if not all, were collected from Jewish historical literature.

As a research document, the book is not what you would call an easy read, however, with a fully annotated index, and clearly descriptive sections and subject titles, the book is surprisingly easy to navigate. The editors detailed clearly all references consistently linked by sparse journalistic narratives intended to enhance clarity while not distracting the reader from the information contained within.

One area of note is the abolitionist movement, of which Jewish scholars ostensibly claim membership. On page 147 the Historical Research Department clearly shows using Jewish sources, that those involved in the abolitionist movement were few, and those who did stand against the institution of slavery “were scorned and rebuked – most harshly by their own brethren in the synagogue.”

There is an additional point of interest identified through the research of the Historical Research Department. It is shown that those who did stand against the spread of slavery did so because of the threat it presented to their jobs and economic well being. This is a central difficulty and one that cannot be easily countered by the Jewish thought control organizations, since many who decried this book as anti-Semitic, cited the fact that Jews were apart of the abolitionist movement as a defense.

There is no denying that they were a part of the abolitionist movement. Similarly, there is no denying that members of the Jewish community were involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, however, the motivation behind the involvement must be brought to light. Interestingly enough, their involvement appears motivated by self-interests and not compassion and concern.

In exhaustive detail, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews provides geographic records beginning with the infamous Columbus voyages, and dealing with Jews and slavery in Brazil, Surinam, Barbados, Curacao and Jamaica. Jewish Slavery in Colonial North America, the South, and Jewish involvement in the Civil War.

Jewish court records, port records and wills of Jewish slave owners were used. The names of ships, their owners and in many cases, their cargo, were listed and presented in an easy to understand format. Not only is the information easy to read, but using Jewish sources also eliminates the accusation of fraud – unless of course the Jewish scholars maintain that their research in this matter is shoddy and fraudulent.

Given the volatility of the subject, it is obvious why a book approaching this area would be controversial, however as the number of those having read the book has grown over the years, it has produced in many areas, as the editor’s note stated “an opportunity to develop a more equitable relationship between the families of man.”

One of the most controversial books of the decade, this book is one that you must own in order to be considered, up to date and well-educated regarding historical realities. The scholarly treatment of this subject by the Historical Research Department is unmatched.