The Pale Face of Terrorism

Terrorist Definition..

Abibifahodie,

Amerikkka… despite its “war on terror”, a laughable farce of a term, is home to some of the oldest terrorist organizations in existence.  Organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, and other scattered “right wing militias” (white supremacist paramilitary groups) essentially only exist for terroristic purposes.  A database compiled by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute says that out of 201 incidents that could be classified as terrorism between 2008-2016, those committed by “right wing extremists” (code word for white supremacists) outnumber those by so-called “Islamicists” (those who whites want to make the face of terrorism) by nearly a 2-1 margin.  According to the report, right wing/white supremacists account for 115 cases, “Islamicists” accounted for 63 cases, and “others” (so called “left wing” groups, animal rights activists, so-called Black Lives Matter activists, kwk) accounted for 19 cases.  Nearly 1/3rd of those committed by so called “right wing extremists” resulted in casualties.  The Department of Homeland Security issued a report which gave the statistic that white supremacists were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000-2016, more than any other domestic terrorist movement.  But although these statistics, taken and provided by whites themselves, are as clear as day, the mainstream media, which functions as the propaganda arm of the system of white supremacy, are often very hesitant and unwilling to label these incidents as terrorism.  In fact, in Feb 2017 under the administration of white supremacist in chief, Donald Trump, the government and national law enforcement organizations declared that they would would no longer target white supremacist groups, under a program called “Countering Violent Extremism”, and would instead focus all of their attention on Muslim groups, and that they would be changing the name of the program to “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism”.

Terrorists..

Recently, the FBI has come with a report that suggests that those who are labeled as “Black Identity Extremists”, which is a totally made-up term/movement, but I suppose that it refers to conscious or “woke” Black people, those of Afrikan descent who are aware of racism/white supremacy, and are actively attempting to crush white supremacy and replace it with justice, are a violent terroristic threat in the US, although details of the crimes of this supposedly dangerous movement are noticeably absent.  This is extremely significant because whites, who are extraordinarily adept at using their propaganda to change the narratives, and literally change the face of the negative, destructive behaviors that they predominantly engage in, are setting the stage to again change the face of terrorism, from its rightful white face, away from the traditional scapegoat of terrorism, the arab/middle easterner, to Black/Afrikan people, and specifically, Black/Afrikan people who do not subscribe to the horrific, immoral system of racism/white supremacy.  This, coupled with the National Defense Authorization act, signed into law by Barack Obama, which authorizes military detention of civilians, even so called US citizens, without habeus corpus or due process, sets the stage for egregious injustice.  Essentially, this means that whites are using terroristic strategies, to strike down so-called terrorism, which really consists of people who fight against the terroristic ways of the establishment.  It is like a complete cipher of evil and injustice.

Fighters..

Since white supremacy is a global problem, and in my view, the single biggest global problem in existence, their terrorism is not only limited to how they deal with non-whites in Amerikkka, but it also applies to the way Amerikkka has operated internationally.  white Amerikkkans, along with those who may be of other races, but who have pledged their allegiance to Amerikkkan white supremacy through their employment and/or association with the institutions that enforce that social order, operate terroristically by way of their constant invasions of foreign territories in order to rape those countries of its natural resources, occupying and colonizing those territories for indefinite periods, and controlling them politically, either outright or by installing puppet regimes.  This actually makes things such as the “war on terror” even more of a joke than usual, because Amerikkka has always been terroristic in nature since its inception, by its own definitions of what terror is.  Their war on terror and labeling all those who are willing to use alternative means for expressing their political viewpoints as terrorists is the definition of projection, and another demonstration of the characteristic arrogance of the practitioners of white supremacy.

Since systematic white supremacy is built unjustly on lies and deception, and was enforced by extreme violence, genocidal acts and enslavement, the only way in which such a system could possibly be maintained is through a system of terrorism.   Terrorism, as defined at the beginning of the article is necessary within such an unjust, immoral system because the system is built directly off of the subjugation of all non-whites, but especially, and most viciously, Black/Afrikan people.  A society that was created through violence, must then be maintained mainly through violence, or the threat thereof.  Such a system is bound to produce rebellion and insurgency among those who are rightfully and righteously dissatisfied and enraged by such malfeasance.  This system has many different components designed to keep Black/Afrikan people mentally distracted and confused, and is designed to coerce Black/Afrikan people into “playing along”, which many do because of the fear of the perceived violent repercussions of speaking out and actively working against white supremacy.  This is yet again, according to the definition  at the beginning, terroristic in nature.  These fears are justified, when one studies the history of those who made it their life’s work to fight white supremacy (Malcolm X, Garvey, Patrice Lumumba, Assata Shakur, Steven Biko, Darren Seals, Khalid Muhammad, and on and on),  It recalls how Baba Kamau Kambon refers to the current dominant social order not as white supremacy, but as systematic global white terror and domination, as a way of not giving whites supreme status, but defining the social order in the way it was established and maintained, through terrorism.

This once again highlights the importance of studying our enemies, and taking in, as well as dispensing correct information.  Without having the correct information, we do not have a chance at survival against this system, which is built on hypocrisy, lies, contradictions, and terrorism, and is armed with a powerful propaganda and public relations machine, which is used to justify whatever the psychopaths who are at the controls of the institutions which constitute white supremacy want to do.  The way western white nations have been beating the drum against terrorism, while making non-whites the face of terrorism, is absolutely nothing but whites using their propaganda arm to change the narrative, project their own psychopathy onto others, and pass the buck, so to speak.  We must re-take control of the narrative, and always define any act of white supremacy as an act of terrorism, while never letting whites, who tend to be magicians with the english language, be able to wiggle their way out of that label.  Those of us who have the correct information can never again allow our enemies to pejoratively use the term terrorist without making them define terrorism, and reminding them of their sordid history of terrorism, in which the system that they enjoy, and use as a weapon against all other people, but especially Black/Afrikan people, was built.

Abibifahodie,

Brother Osei, 21st Century Race Man

 

A United Kingdom-Interracial propaganda Film

united-kingdom

Looks like Hollywood has the perfect film just in time for their Greco-Roman, pagan,orgy-inspired holiday known as Valentine’s Day.  The interracial propaganda is relentless.  When President Obama was in office there a big increase in interracial couples in television dramas,sitcoms and films.  By him being biracial,he was used as a symbol of some type of racial harmony. Of course we know this is nonsense. There can be no racial harmony when one racial group has more power than another group.  This is where the propaganda comes in. I   have covered  this subject many times in the past.  And it looks like I’ll have to continue to do as long as they keep putting these films out.  Now we have the film A United Kingdom. The basic synopsis :

“The film is based on a true story. Seretse Khama (David Oyelowo) is the Prince of Bechuanaland (now Botswana). In 1948 he meets and falls in love with London office worker Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike). But their interracial relationship is not approved of by either of their families, nor by the British and South African governments. Seretse and Ruth must defy family, apartheid and the British empire to return from an imposed exile to their African kingdom, and assume power after independence.”

This trailer(above) is very hard to watch.  Here you have an African prince and he wants to marry a white woman??  This is total insanity.  This is self hatred to the fullest!  I don’t want to hear any crap about color blind love.  This is nothing but propaganda to make us love our oppressors.  A white woman as a queen in an African nation is blasphemous! This is a slap in the face to black love.   Seretse Khama is a disgrace to African people. Khama sold out his nation.  He is no prince!  Isn’t it interesting that Hollywood can find money to make this film but not about real African heroes.  There were African men and women that did great things in the past.  What about a film about Thomas Sankara?  Patrice Lumumba? Yaa Asantewaa? Queen Tiye? Marcus Garvey? Haitian revolution?  Queen Nzinga? Nope!  Instead they give a stupid ass love story between a brain dead Negro who gives his fortune away to a common white woman.  This film is stupid  and insulting on so many levels.

This is a very interesting interview with the stars David Oyelowo and Rosamund Pike. Pike says that the film tackles racial prejudice from both sides.  She says that it’s about two people that are color blind.  Give me a break!  This white woman is lying through her teeth.  She knows damn well no one is color blind.  And our society is nowhere near that.  The world is comprised of racial groups.  Color blindness is a myth. Then Oyewolo goes on to say that the way to “unite a kingdom” is through love. And that Botswana has control of “most” of it’s resources.  How did they lose some of their resources?  How took them? I think you know the answer. And he says that Botswana sees itself has post-racial.  This is man is insane! How can Africa be post-racial when you got Europeans trying to steal land and resources?  He also says that his white wife has a small part in the film.  She plays a…..racist!  How fitting is that.  You can’t make this stuff up. Black love and black unity is the way to fight white racism.  The answer is not marrying and making babies with your oppressor.  This film is designed to confuse black people about racism.

amma-asante1

This picture(above) is  of Amma Asante and her husband.  She is a screenwriter and director. She is the director of A United Kingdom. Why would a black woman do an interracial love story?   Well that’s an easy answer.  Just look  at her husband and  it’s easy to see why this so-called universal love story is close to her heart.

when-hands-touch

Amma Asante is a very sick woman!  This black woman has lost her damn mind.You don’t think so?  Well check out the picture(above).  That is a photo of the upcoming film When Hands Touch.  It’s a World War 2 “love story”. It stars Amandla Stenberg who plays a biracial girl who falls in love with a Nazi youth.  What the hell??  Even though Stenberg is biracial in this racial context she will be seen as just a black girl.  I will cover the problem of biracial women representing black women in a later post.  But anyway this film has taken “love they enemy” to a whole different level!  They want us to love Nazi’s now???  What’s next?  A  love story with Adolf Hitler and Angela Bassett?   Or maybe Denzel Washington falling in love with a female skinhead?  I wouldn’t put it pass Hollywood at this point. Amma Asante has sold her sold for the chance to corrupt the minds of black people.  She is a female version of Lee Daniels.

david-oyelowo

I understand better now why  David Oyelowo was chosen for the lead role.  In Hollywood he’s the go-to Negro at the moment.  He’s been in other anti-black propaganda films like The Butler,Red Tails and The Help.  And judging by the pic(above) of Oyelowo and his family,I think he was perfect for the role.  Oyelowo and Asante are one in the same.  They are both from the United Kingdom.  And neither one of them believes in  black love or black unity.  They believe the way to defeat racism,oppression, and colonization is to just love your oppressor.  Both of them are brain dead swirlers. But whatever you do,don’t support this film.  Save your money and stay far away from this garbage of a film.

Pan African Proclamation of 2016

RBG Man...

Hotep family! It’s your brother KP.  I hope everyone is doing well.  I enjoyed my little break from posting. I thought this would be a good post for my return. Here at Kushite Kingdom I have always promoted  the idea of being Pan African. As well as covering topics like Black consciousness,economics,African culture and Black liberation. In exposing the lies that we are told about our history, I’ve tried my best to wake up my people. Many of us get so much disinformation in the media we are very confused.  That’s why I do my best to get out important information to my people. Even if I offend other races in the process. Offending people is not my concern.   If I was scared to offend others I would’ve stop blogging a long time ago.The survival of my people is my main concern.  I have always believed  that black consciousness was a spiritual path based on health,wellness amd knowledge of self. Black consciousness is appreciation for our African heritage,our people and families. And real  power is about determination and self control.  You can call this a proclamation,manifesto,mission statement or public declaration.  But I just wanted to list some ideas and things we as black people should be doing if we want to survive as well as change our mindset.  We have a lot of work ahead of us.  But together we can do this.  I’m sure some of you will like some of it…and others will disagree.  But that’s okay. I’m open to any suggestions anyone may have.

Pan African Flag..

  1. Promote Black Love
  2. Reject ideologies that have European origins
  3. Do not celebrate European holidays(White Gods)
  4. Learn a trade or skill to empower your people
  5. Teach African culture and Black History to your children. And how it can be used as an instrument of Power
Books
6. Study biology and genetics. Learn about your African bloodline.
7.Accept the harsh reality that biracial people are not black
8.Realize that you must sacrifice so that others can be free
9. To live with honor and integrity
10. Must understand that healing means we no longer allow trauma to control our lives
11. Do not engage in sexual activity with non-blacks
12. Stand for justice and equality
Heroes...
13. Learn about great African heroes such as Marcus Garvey,Nat Turner,Queen Nzinga,Shaka Zulu,Thomas Sankara,Steve Biko,Harriet Tubman,Dutty Boukman,Patrice Lumumba,Martin Delany,Edward Blyden,Alexander Crummel,Assata Shakur,Mansa Musa,Malcolm X and Jean Jacques Dessalines. Appreciate their greatness but also learn from their mistakes.
14. Read The Blueprint for Black Power by Amos Wilson(then get all his books)
15. Read The Destruction of Black Civilizations by Chancellor Williams(then get all his books)
16. Read books by black scholars such as John Henrik Clarke,Queen Afua, Kwame Ture,Marimba Ani,Jewel Pookrum,Dr Sebi,Umar Johnson,Llaila Afrika,Bobby E.Wright …among others.
17. Reject European standards of beauty and uplift African Beauty
Black woman..
18.Trust your ancestors and your instincts
19. Support Black businesses
20.Learn how to fish and hunt
21.Grow your own food
22.Learn to speak and write an African language
23.Learn how to read a map and use a compass
24.  Don’t be violent towards black homosexuals,transgenders and lesbians. Live and let live.  But realize that it is not conducive behavior for African people.
25.Understand that homosexuality,bestiality,lesbianism and pedophilia is sexual perversion.
Tomiko..
26. Do not be slut or whore.  It is very self destructive  and shows your immaturity. This applies to women….and men.
27. Assume that all non-blacks do not have your best interest in mind.
28. Brothers: Do not display a misogynistic mindset. Hating and despising black women shows ignorance and no growth as a man.  You must learn to respect your woman. Let sistas express themselves although it is okay to disagree at times. But give sistas their space.
29. Sistas: Do not be a man hating feminist.  Do not put down or degrade your man. Use words of encouragement to uplift your man.  And realize that men want to be leaders. Every gender has their role and should compliment the other gender.  A relationship is a partnership that both can benefit from.
30.  You must realize that the masculine principle  and feminine principle compliment one another. And that black men and women must work together to strengthen the family unit.

Sa-Roc & David Banner-The Who

Patrice...

I love this rap song!  It’s by David Banner and Sa Roc.  It was actually recorded back in 2014.  I meant to post it back then and never got around to it.  It’s a song dedicated to African hero Patrice Lumumba.  I love the lyrics and the powerful statement being made.  More hip hop artists should be doing this.  We don’t want our great heroes and sheroes to be forgotten.  Black children should know the names of the people who fought for their freedom and liberation.

Patrice Lumumba: Africa’s Lost Leader

Lumumba...

Patrice Lumumba (1925-61) is perhaps the most famous leader of the African independence movement. After his execution in 1961, when he had been prime minister of the newly-liberated Congo for only seven months, he became an icon of anti-imperialist struggle. As the news came out, his picture was brandished in demonstrations in capitals around the world, along with Che Guevara and Mao Zedong. His life and the independence that he sought for the Congo made him a pivotal figure of the 20th century, highlighting ongoing Western colonialism and the problematic nature of the independence granted to huge swathes of the globe after 1945. In this book, revised and updated to include new thinking on the Congo crisis and incorporating material recently released from British intelligence archives, Leo Zeilig tells the story of the Congo in the dying days of colonialism, and of Lumumba’s transition from nationalist to revolutionary to international symbol of African liberation.

Patrice Lumumba- Congolese Warrior

Patrice1...

During his exile in the 1980s, Mr Holden Roberto – president of the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) – and one of his collaborators, visited me in my office at Howard University in Washington. In order to counter accusations (incidentally well-founded) levelled at his party, of colluding with American imperialism and selling out on their commitment to Pan-Africanism, my two visitors began by reciting in its entirety Patrice Emery Lumumba’s famous speech at the Congolese independence ceremony on 30th June 1960. This gesture – which strongly affected me – shows the attachment you still find across the whole African continent, even among its lost sheep, for this martyr for African nationalism and the struggles of oppressed peoples all over the world.

Rare are the African countries where one does not find streets, even main roads, named after Lumumba. Many African children born after his assassination have ‘Lumumba’ as their forename. The former executive secretary of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (2002-5) and president of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (2010-11) is called Patrick Lumumba, and his passion for change and eloquence recalls those qualities in his namesake.

These two references to the political heritage of Lumumba show how the assassination of this great African leader resonated – and continues to resonate – with Africans. In his excellent book, The Assassination of Lumumba, Belgian sociologist Ludo de Witte shows the significance of this particular assassination in the history of Western tactics against the anti-imperialist revolutions of the 20th Century – from Mossadegh’s Iran to Nasserist Egypt, Castro’s Cuba, Lumumba’s Congo and Sankara’s Burkina Faso.

It is in this context – the struggle between the interests of the international bourgeoisie and those of the popular masses – that we must understand the factors contributing to Lumumba’s assassination, its political consequences for Congo, and the place of this Congolese hero in the pantheon of universal defenders of the emancipation of peoples.

The assassination of Lumumba was the outcome of two conspiracies closely bound together with the American and Belgian governments, which relied on the complicity of certain Congolese leaders and a Belgian firing squad composed of soldiers and policemen under the Katanga puppet regime.

Patrice3...

Patrice Lumumba – the man and his political project

Who is Patrice Lumumba, and why was he so violently assassinated by the forces of counter-revolution? Born on 2nd July 1925 in Onalua, a small village in the region of Katako-Kombe, Lumumba received his education at primary school as well as among Belgian Catholic missionaries at Tshumbe Sainte-Marie and the famous Methodist mission in Wembo Nyama. He was not appreciated there, neither among the representatives of the colonial trinity (the State, big business, the Catholic Church) nor by the American missionaries – themselves fervent believers in the ideology of white supremacy prevalent in the Southern states of the USA, and too weak to contest colonial repression. An intellectually precocious pupil who rebelled against the thundering paternalism of the missionaries, the young Lumumba decided to leave Sankuru in 1944 without obtaining his certificate of study in order to spread his wings elsewhere. After several months in the region of Kindu, he would go on to pursue a career as a bureaucrat in Kisangani (then Stanleyville). It was during this long stay at Kisangani (1944-57) that Lumumba developed his characteristic traits; moral and intellectual integrity, immovability on points of principle, and exceptional bravery even in the face of death. As one of the members of the firing squad which killed him recalled, Lumumba maintained a glacial calm in front of the executioners.

At Kisangani, Lumumba distinguished himself as president, vice president, or secretary, of at least seven organisations of Congolese évolués – literally meaning ‘evolved people’, this term was used by the Belgian colonial establishment to distinguish a class of ‘Westernised’ blacks. An autodidact, with the exception of a year of professional training at the École Postale in Kinshasa (then Leopoldville), he succeeded in acquiring immense knowledge about the contemporary world through extensive, self-guided reading on politics and history. According to Thomas Kanza, his collaborator and biographer, Lumumba ‘read all that fell into his hands’. As leader, he was a convincing and effective representative for the Kisangani evolués, liaising with the governor of the province, the Belgian minister of the colonies, Auguste Buisseret, and the young king, Baudouin I, during his first visit to Congo in 1955. Still a believer in the idea of the Belgo-Congolese community, promulgated by amicales belgo-congolais, clubs comprising evolués and those Belgians open to a gradual process of integration, Lumumba was invited to Belgium for the first time in 1956.

Fearing his perspicacity and well-founded criticisms of colonial racism, the colonial authorities welcomed his return from Brussels with a charge of tax avoidance, followed by a sentence of two years in prison by a trial court in Kisangani. The public prosecutor, judging this punishment insufficient, made an appeal, but the court of appeal in Kinshasa confirmed the sentence of two years. This punishment was reduced to four months, which he had already served in preventative detention, followed by a royal order granting grace, signed on 27th August 1957.

If Kisangani had given him the political apprenticeship he needed to master the mysteries of organisation and political practice, these two experiences of Kinshasa, of the École Postale and his incarceration, contributed in a decisive way to the awakening of his political consciousness. During his training in postal service administration in 1948, Lumumba made a short visit to Brazzaville, on the right bank of the River Congo opposite Kinshasa. Thirsty from walking, he stopped outside a café with the hope of finding a waiter who would give him a glass of water. To his surprise, it was the European café patron who noticed him, and invited him to sit where the whites were seated and brought him, not tap water, but mineral water. For the sociologist Pierre Clément – for whom he would work as a research assistant four years later –here was the first time that Lumumba realised that another world was possible, habituated as he was to the system of apartheid practised in Belgian Congo. Reinvigorated by the model of assimilation among the French in Congo-Brazzaville – though the ‘card of civic merit’ in 1948 and formal registration in 1952 did not succeed in guaranteeing equality of access to jobs, medical treatment, housing, social services and recreation – an évolué Lumumba felt his long-cowed spirit emboldened enough to dream of a more beautiful country than Belgian Congo.

This dream of radical change would reinforce itself further during his months of incarceration, during which Lumumba had the occasion to lead a serious reflection on the future of Congo and to read the famous ‘Plan de trente ans pour l’émancipation politique de l’Afrique belge’ by A.A.J Van Bilsen, a little known professor at the Colonial University of Anvers, together with the two Congolese reactions to this document: first, ‘Manifeste de la Conscience Africaine’, the work of a group of catholic intellectuals represented by Joseph Ileo, Joseph Malula (future cardinal) and Joseph Ngalula; second, the counter-manifesto by l’Alliance des Bakongo (ABAKO), an ethnic association led by Joseph Kasavubu. After leaving prison, Lumumba installed himself in Kinshasa where, from 1957, he launched himself into the political struggle. Joining up with Ileo and Ngalula, he succeeded, in October 1958, in taking the leadership of the Mouvement National Congolais (MNC), a political organisation started up with the intention of eventually becoming a credible political party at the national level.

By a happy confluence of circumstances, the year 1958 ended with the emergence of Patrice Lumumba as one of the principal leaders in the struggle for independence. The turning point was the visit to Kinshasa by two east African leaders on their way to the first ‘Conference des peuples Africains’, held in Accra between the 5th and 13th December 1958. Concerned that a large country like Congo risked missing out on this great African rendez-vous, A.R. Mohamed Babu of Zanzibar and Tom Mboya of Kenya asked a hotel worker where they could find the political leaders of the emerging independence movement. The worker in question was very happy to bring about a meeting with Patrice Lumumba, then the commercial director of the Brasserie du Bas-Congo (Bracongo), which produced the beer Polar. Lumumba often offered this to clients, ostensibly for promotional purposes but often using this as an opportunity to awaken the clients’ political consciousness. Babu and Mboya were so impressed by Lumumba that they sent a telegram to the Pan African Freedom Movement for East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) asking for money to bring a Congolese delegation to Accra.

And so Patrice Lumumba, Gaston Diami and Joseph Ngalula accompanied Babu and Mboya to Accra, where Lumumba attracted the notice of the delegates at the conference, which brought together representatives from the 8 independent countries (Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia) and those of the political parties, trade unions and other organisations of the civil society of the Pan-African world. There he met the leaders of national liberation movements such as Félix-Roland Moumié of the Union des Populations de Cameroun (UPC), Frantz Fanon of the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) of Algeria, and Amilcar Cabral of the Parti Africain pour L’independence de Guinéeet du Cap Vert (PAIGC), and he established strong working relationships with some great African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Modibo Keita and Ahmed Sékou Touré.

On his return to Kinshasa, Lumumba organized a popular demonstration on Sunday 28th December to inform the Congolese population of the resolutions of the Accra conference and their implications for the independence movement in Congo. Following the refusal by the first Belgian mayor of Kinshasa to allow ABAKO to hold a similar meeting the following Sunday, 4th January 1959, the population of Kinshasa rose in a three-day rebellion which sounded the death knell for the Belgian colonial regime in Congo. “Indépendance immediate”, the slogan of protestors, became a non-negotiable demand in the struggle of the Congolese people for their total freedom. Instead of the thirty years suggested by Van Bilsen in 1956, independence was obtained in four. The mobilisation of the population by radical political parties like ABAKA and MNC-L was responsible for the erosion of legitimacy, as much as the repressive abilities, of the colonial regime. Lumumba benefited from this new situation by placing the MNC-L throughout all the provinces of the country, to the point that his party became the spearhead of the Congolese independence struggle.

BELGIUM LUMUMBA

The assassination of Lumumba        

For more than 128 years, the US and Belgium played key roles in fashioning the destiny of the Congo. In April 1884, seven months after the opening of Congress in Berlin, the US became the first country in the world to recognise the claims of King Leopold of Belgium to the Congo basin territories. When the atrocities linked to the brutal economic exploitation of Congo led to millions of deaths, the US joined with other global powers to force Belgium to put an end to the status of Congo as a personal possession of King Leopold II and to give it the status of an ordinary colony. During the colonial period (1908- 60), the US saw Congo’s strategic advantage due to its abundant natural resources, above all its uranium, which was used to created the first atomic weapons, the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

With the launching of the Cold War, it was inevitable that Washington and her Western allies would not be disposed to give Africans control over their own strategically valuable natural resources, for fear that they would fall into the hands of their Soviet enemies. Because of this, Patrice Lumumba’s attempt to secure an authentic independence and to obtain effective control over the resources of Congo, with the aim of improving the living standards of our people, was seen as a threat to Western interests. In their fight against him, Washington and Brussels used all the tools and resources at their disposal, including the United Nations under Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld and his U.S. assistant Ralph Bunche, Lumumba’s Congolese political enemies, and his assassins.

In Congo, the assassination of Lumumba is, for good reason, considered the ‘original sin’ of the country. Occurring less than seven months after independence (30th June 1960), it was a stumbling block for ideals of national unity, economic independence, and the African solidarity for which Lumumba had advocated, as well as being a terrible blow to the hopes for freedom and material prosperity of millions of Congolese people. In place of this, the country was divided into four parts: the west of the country under the central government of Kinshasa; the north west under a rival central government led by Lumumba partisans; and the mining provinces of Katanga and Sud Kasaï under the secessionist regimes of Moïse Tshombe and Albert Kalonji, at Lumumbashi (Elisabethville) and Mbuji-Mayi (Bakwanga) respectively.

The neo-colonial regime of Kinshasa was born from the dismissal of Lumumba by president Kasavubu in 1960 and the coup d’etat of 14th September by which colonel Joseph-Desiré Mobutu claimed to neutralise both protagonists of the institutional crisis. Based on an obscure article of ‘La Loi Fondamentale’, the temporary constitution bequeathed to Congo by Belgium, this action ran contrary to all the political conventions of a parliamentary system where the prime minister enjoys a majority in parliament. This was the case with Lumumba: the two chambers rejected Kasavubu’s action as invalid. The Western puppet-masters understood then that there would have to be a military intervention to remove Lumumba from power, and Mobutu had already been making preparations to this end from the beginning of the Congolese crisis in July. A former ally of Prime Minister Lumumba, he was at the same time linked to the forces of the counter-revolution as an informer for the Belgian and American security services.

It was this man who became the real master of Kinshasa, in his role as head of the Binza Group. So-labelled because its members lived and met up in the well-off residential district of Binza, this powerful clique drew its power from its members’ influence over crucial institutions and politicians; the army (Mobutu); the police (Victor Nendaka); the ministry of foreign affairs (Justin Bomkoko), the ministry of the interior (Damien Kandolo), the Central Bank (Albert Ndele). These individuals worked in close collaboration with Prime Minister Cyrille Adoula and President Kasavabu, and no important decision could be taken by these last two without the approval of the Binza group, the hub of neocolonialism in Congo.

Patrice4...

The secessions of Katanga and Sud Kasaï

Of these two secessions, that of Sud Kasaï is the lesser-known one yet it also played an important role in the political and physical assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Proclaimed on 8th August 1960 in Lumumbashi, the Sud Kasaï secession forged close links with its Katangan counterpart, siding with the interests of international high finance and the counter-revolution, with La Societé Diamantifère Forminière in Kasaï playing the same role – of money-lender – that the Union Miniere du Haut Katanga (UMHK) played in Katanga. The smaller secession took place as the Lumumba administration was receiving logistical assistance from the Soviet Union in order to fight a war against the secession in Katanga, due to the refusal of UN Secretary General Dag Hammerskjöld to allow the Security Council to perform its remit of helping the Congolese government expel the Belgian forces and white mercenaries and put an end to the secession. The soldiers of the National Congolese Army (ANC) en route to Katanga received the order to put an end to the small secession of Sud Kasaï before crossing the border. Unfortunately, the undisciplined soldiers committed atrocious massacres against innocent civilians, including close to a thousand men, women and children who believed themselves safe from danger in the sanctuary of the Catholic Cathedral of Mbuju-Mayi (today Bakwanga).

Dag Hammarskjöld defined these killings as ‘genocide’ against the Luba and pointed the finger at Prime Minister Lumumba. Aside from the fact that the atrocities committed in Sud Kasaï did not correspond to the definition of genocide in international law, these odious crimes were not the sole responsibility of the head of government, but of the entire chain of command: the superior officers on the ground; the Chief of Staff, Mobutu; Prime Minister Lumumba; and President Kasavubu, in his capacity as supreme commander of the armed forces. As such, neither Hammerskjöld nor Kasavabu had any justification either for accusing Lumumba of genocide, or for illegally dismissing him when the responsibility for this incident was largely a collective one.

The capital of Sud Kasaï would be baptised ‘la boucherie’, because it was the chosen site for the summary execution of Lumumbists whom the neo-colonial regime of Kinshasa wanted to destroy. The most famous among the victims is without doubt Jean-Pierre Finant (1922-61), the first democratically-elected governor of the eastern province, of which Kisangani is the capital. Of mixed Belgo-Congolais descent and father of the famous Congolese singer Abeti Masikini (Betty Finant, 1954-94), he was executed on 17th February 1961, exactly one month after the assassination of Lumumba, with eleven companions, including Jacques Lumbala (a former colleague of Mobutu), Emmanuel Nzuzi and Jacques Fataki. As in the case of Lumumba, who was handed over to Katangan secessionists, the Binza group saw no contradiction between collaborating with the secessionist regimes which it needed to destroy, and assassinating their common enemies, the Lumumbists.

The secession of Sud-Kasaï collapsed through its internal contradictions, mainly due to the struggle for power between Joseph Ngalula and Albert Kalonji, who was proclaimed Mulopwe or emperor of the Luba-Kasaï, a people who had never been under the leadership of a single leader since leaving their ancestral birthplace in Katanga in the 18th century. Having returned to Kinshasa to become minister of education for the central government, Ngalula plotted with the Binza group to destroy Kalonji and bring an end to the secession. This came about in September 1962, following an armed revolt under the direction of Kalonji’s Chief of Staff.

Contrary to the Sud-Kasaï secession, where the internal dimension was as crucial to its failure as it was to its birth; in light of the Lulua-Baluba conflict and its poor management – by first, the Belgians, later, Lumumba – the external factor was a defining one in Katanga. As Jean Ziegler aptly described it in his work La contre revolution en Afrique, in its progression towards the south of the continent, the African national liberation movement hit the wall of counter-revolution, whereby the white colonists, mining companies and their right-wing allies in the West, banded together to defend their privileges. Then, from Katanga to the Cape of Good Hope, the white counter-attack manifested itself in the creation of states controlled by white colonists, either directly, as in the case of South Africa, in Namibia and in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyassaland, indirectly through the colonial state (Angola and Mozambique), or via a puppet government of paid-up blacks (Katanga). The essential continuity was that all these regimes succeeded in defending and promoting the interests of colonialists and of the corporations that sought to maximise their profits through the exploitation of badly-paid and quiescent labour. In the context of the cold war, the counter-revolution had no problem in inserting itself in the hegemonic discourse of Western values, Christian and democratic, which excluded communism, atheism and authoritarianism.

Well before the Rhodesian colonialist Ian Smith signed his ‘internal settlement’ with Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Pastor Ndabaningi and Chief Jeremiah Chirau in Zimbabwe, another agreement had already been negotiated in Congo, between the Conféderation des associations tribales de Katanga (CONAKAT) of Moïse Tshombe and Godefroid Munongo, the UMHK and the Union Katangaise – an association representing white colonialists – to allow Katanga to secede from Congo and become an independent state. In this sense, CONAKAT was just a way of giving voice to the interests of white colonialists through African mouths. Without the financial support of the UMHK, the military and technical support of Belgium, and the management of administrative and economic structures by the colonialists, Katanga could not survive as a political entity. Moreover, the secession relied on considerable external support; not only from Belgium, but also from France, the United Kingdom, and the US. In the country of Uncle Sam, the Katangan secession enjoyed solid backing in reactionary circles – lobbyists for the cause included influential senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona (a radical conservative), Thomas Dodd of Connecticut (a Democrat reprimanded by the Senate for corruption), and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (a notorious racist, despite having fathered a daughter with a black woman).

Following on from the assassination of Lumumba, the Katangan lobby in the US and Europe lost its influence with the key deciders such as John F. Kennedy and Paul-Henri Spaak, the Belgian minister of Foreign Affairs. These men understood that in the context of the Cold War, the territorial integrity of Congo was more useful to the West than a secessionist province which would continue to sow dissent across Africa and in the Third World in general, in turn raising difficult questions about the West’s responsibility for the death of Lumumba. Besides, these deciders no longer perceived a great threat to the economic and strategic interests of the West in Central Africa, given the physical elimination of Lumumba and the marginalization of Lumumbists after Lovanium. It is within this context that Kennedy would give the green light for the UN to put an end to the secession with force. Taking place on 29th November 1962, the UN intervention succeeded, with an agreement of capitulation signed by Tshombe on 17 January 1983. Ironically, the restoration of national unity to which Lumumba had given his life was realised by the interests of the imperial powers and their puppets in the neo-colonial regime in Kinshasa.

These efforts succeeded in putting an end to the Lumumbist regime of Kisangani in August 1961, to the secession of Sud-Kasaï in September 1962 and to that of Katanga in January 1963. The end of these three regimes would consecrate the rise of General Mobutu and his clique, the Binza Group.

Lumumba’s Legacy

Hardly had this process of unification finished before a radical social movement pronouncing a ‘second independence’ rose up to contest the neo-colonial state in Kinshasa and its pro-Western leaders. This mass movement brought together peasants, workers, the urban unemployed and students, alongside low and mid-ranking officials, who found an enthusiastic leadership among the former lieutenants of Patrice Lumumba, of which the majority had reformed to create the Conseil National de Libération (CNL) in October 1963 in Brazzaville.

Divided on the field into two wings – the Kwilu front, led by Pierre Mulele, and the Eastern front under Christopher Gbenye, Gaston Soumialot and Laurent-Desiré Kabila – the strengths and weaknesses of the movement can be used to gauge the global heritage of Patrice Lumumba, for Congo and the whole of Africa. The most positive aspect of this legacy is reflected in Pierre Mulele’s dedication to a radical program of change to satisfy the deep aspirations of the Congolese people for democracy and social progress. On the other hand, the Lumumbists of the Eastern front were more interested in power, and the privileges it conferred, than in genuine social change. In the latter case, it was all rhetoric and no action. In effect, the challenge for all those who want to follow in the footsteps of Lumumba is to make the leap from words into action.

A struggle that is far from over…

According to unconfirmed reports, Walter Kansteiner – US Secretary of State for African Affairs under George W. Bush, between June 2001 and November 2003 – designed a plan for the division of Congo into four countries. The justification for such a Balkanisation would be that, in its present dimensions, the country is too large and ungovernable. For the extreme right of the US Republican Party, and those with interests in the resources of tropical Africa – as is the case with the family business W.H Kansteiner, Inc of Chicago – this would facilitate access to resources, and make their transfer to outside markets easier. Besides, if Rwanda and Uganda could play the role of facilitator, why not?

For those nostalgic for the ‘White Man’s Burden’, and their lackeys in Africa, the reality is that their project for the recolonization of Congo will always stumble against the determination of the Congolese people to defend their unity, their national patrimony, and the territorial integrity of their homeland. The legacy of Patrice Lumumba, Pierre Lulele, André Kisase Ngandu and so many other martyrs brings women, men and children to shout “No” to balkanization and “Yes” to a “United Congo, a strong nation.” Just as the progressive leaders of the struggle for independence chanted this slogan on the eve of the achievement of sovereignty – united and nationalistic men and women of integrity – the real children of Lumumba continue to defend, against the odds, the greater interests of the Congolese nation.

Article by Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja