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.
This photo(above) is of Muhammad Ali in Africa back in 1974. When he had the Rumble in the Jungle fight.
Now look at this recent photoshoot of Colin for GQ magazine. He took this picture in Harlem. Wearing a dashiki??? Hmmmm….that looks familiar.
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.
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.
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 Policy, 3/22/16) 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.
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 (11/17/17, 11/20/17) 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.
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 (Salon, 9/16/16). 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.
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 (Salon, 9/16/16) 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 Times—9/20/11—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.)
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.”
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 Policy, 3/22/16) 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.”
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
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”.
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.
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.
Brother Osei, 21st Century Race Man