The Ankh: Physical and Eternal Life

nae-ankh

The Ankh is defined as: The symbolic representation of both Physical and Eternal life. It is known as the original cross, which is a powerful symbol that was first created by Africans in Ancient Kemet.

The Ankh is commonly known to mean life in the language of Ancient Kemet (land of the Blacks) renamed Egypt by the Greeks. It is also a symbol for the power to give and sustain life, the Ankh is typically associated with material things such as water(which was believed by Egyptians to regenerate life), air, sun, as well as with the Gods, who are frequently pictured carrying an Ankh. The Egyptian king is often associated with the Ankh also, either in possession of an Ankh (providing life to his people) or being given an Ankh (or stream of Ankhs) by the Gods. This can be seen in the picture of King Senworsert below who is holding two Ankhs to his chest. There are numerous examples that have been found that were made from metal, clay and wood. It is usually worn as an amulet to extent the life of living and placed on the mummy to energize the resurrected spirit. The Gods and the Kings are often shown carrying the Ankh to distinguish them from mere mortals. The Ankh symbolized eternal life and bestowed immortality on anyone who possessed it. It is believed that life energy emanating from the Ankh can be absorbed by anyone within a certain proximity. An Ankh serves as an antenna or conduit for the divine power of life that permeates the universe. The amulet is a powerful talisman that provides the wearer with protection from the evil forces of decay and degeneration.

The loop of the Ankh is held by the Gods. It is associated with Isis and Osiris in the Early Dynastic Period. The Loop of the Anhk also represent the feminine discipline or the (Womb), while the elongated section represent the masculine discipline or the (Penis). These two sacred units then come together and form life. Because of its powerful appeal, the Ankh was used in various religious and cultural rituals involving royalty. In the Treasures of Tutankhumun, the Ankh was a major artifact found in the tomb. The circle symbolizes eternal life and the cross below it represents the material plane. The Ankh is called the “Crux Ansata,” it is of Egyptian origin and can be traced to the Early Dynastic Period, appearing frequently in artwork of various material and in relief, depicting the Gods.

ankh1

It is usually held to the nose of the deceased king by the Gods to represent the breath of life given in the after-world. The Ankh also resembles a key and is considered the key to eternal life after death. Its influence was felt in every dynastic period and survives as an icon possessing mystical power throughout the Coptic Christian era. The Ankh possessed by each God had power associated with that God. The Ankh of the God Anubis (shown in the picture to the right) is related to the protection of the dead, that of Sekmet, War, Hapi related to the living waters of the Nile and Amen, the spirit God, the breath of life.

Is racism really just a term for warfare?

In this excellent podcast by Onitaset, he examines the futile use of the term “Racism/White Supremacy” (RWS). He also gives illustrious analogies and metaphors as to why the common focus Black people have on “ending racism” is a dead-end road for Afrikan people, and Afrikans would be better off not only revitalizing our culture and nations to fit the threats we collectively face in the 21st century, but to actively seek power through the institutions and tools that are most useful at present.

I once read an exchange with a Neely Fuller-ite who was trying to seek sympathy for an east Eurasian woman who was allegedly being victimized by RWS. You can read the post here entitled, “The Counter-Racist Cul-De-Sac”. The commentator in opposition to this characterization mentioned that the Asian woman was indeed described correctly by the western Eurasian white woman as not being an “American” (read: white European). Furthermore, this east Eurasian woman had a west Eurasian boyfriend which is typical of these white-identified east Eurasian woman who are raised in the USA by parents who want them to be accepted by the dominate society as a member of the “model race” or an “honorary white”. The Fuller-ite couldn’t understand that the commentator was arguing that RWS only exists because it is a convenient excuse for Afrikans not organizing our own resources for achieving power, and that if the east Eurasian woman truly didn’t like RWS, she should re-patriate to an east Eurasian country which has plenty of nuclear weapons and a robust economy where she will be a first-class citizen. This obvious solution which was based in reality was rejected by the Fuller-ite because he needed to believe that “whites control everything and gave the nuclear weapons to the east Eurasians, therefore whites are still in control”, even if she decides to re-patriate. This is such a self-defeating position because it disables us, Afrikan people, from taking the initiative to secure our own survival. The west Eurasian woman went on to say that she was a supporter of Donald Trump and she voted for him so that “we can get you people out of our country”.

Sun Tzu...

A white woman like that would be regarded as a right-wing extremist or a white nationalist. Regardless of her label, I implore you to read the following article from a typical “white-leftist” whom you Afrikan people think is your friend and the last bulwark against the racist right. You can read the full article at this link.

To summarize the article, the writer basically stated that she lived in Senegal for a year as a Peace Corps volunteer, and interspersed among the references to the “brotherhood of man”, “personal fulfillment”, and “adopted family” tripe that these fake liberals routinely espouse, she states a viewpoint similar to that of a right-wing fanatic. Namely, that Afrikan and west Eurasian (American) cultures are too different to be compatible, and that the solution is to let Afrikans solve their own problems and to keep America white by not allowing Afrikan migration to the USA! This mind you after she was fully funded and welcomed by Afrikans to live for a year in their country. But, be that as it may, this statement of hers is counter-intuitive the negros who need to be part of the “Kumbaya Klan”. (pun intended) However, increasingly, with the ease of global travel, these white lefties are returning to North America and Europe disillusioned with their grand schemes of building a raceless society, and are deciding to protect the legacy of what their forbearers stole through rape, enslavement, theft, murder, and war.

Onitaset makes the brilliant insight that what is called RWS by Neely Fuller-ites is actually warfare. Therefore, any approach to solving this problem should be decidedly warlike. Now the definition of warfare is broad and takes many varied methods, from economic warfare, to psychological warfare, and most apparently conventional warfare, which is actually the least effective and most expensive in terms of energy, and manpower. It usually is the last stage of warfare once all other forms have been exhausted or proven ineffective.

I implore Afrikan nationalists, Garveyites, Pro-Blacks, Afrikan Spiritualists, Nationists, and members of the Conscious Community to consider dropping both terms “Racism” and “White Supremacy” and adopting new terms. Kamau Kambon describes it as “white world domination by terror”, others call it ethno-nationalism, I prefer the term white hegemony which I defined in my blog post “Why Mulattoes and other Hybrids are not Afrikan“. It is also in my book, ACBN: A Primer. Onitaset has written a couple of books which I also implore you to purchase, read, and consider their ideas as well. It is abundantly clear that many of the ideas of the last century have failed or been impotent in the face of the dangers we face. With these books and new concepts, it is time to reconsider the approach we are taking to gain power for Afrikan survival and sovereignty.

Article by Lumumba Afrika

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

Tribute to Frances Cress Welsing

“Melanin is the black pigment which permits skins to appear other than white (black, brown, red and yellow). Melanin pigment coloration is the norm for the hue-man family. If there are non-white readers who disagree with this presentation of white rejection of the white-skinned self, may I refer you to the literature on the currently developing sun-tanning parlors.”

“Most important, Black males must help one another to understand that they are being led by the dynamic of white supremacy to inflict extreme damage upon themselves, one another and ultimately the Black race. Black males must understand that, contrary to what is said, the war being conducted in urban centers is not against drugs but against Black males- for the purpose of white genetic survival.”

“(It must be realized that no Black males manufacture the chemicals for drug use, nor do any Black males manufacture guns.)”

“The destruction of Black males for the purpose of white genetic survival is the reason behind the ever-increasing disparity between the \ number of Black females entering and graduating from high schools and institutions of higher education compared to the far lesser number of Black males.”

Frances

However, it must be understood that high levels of self-respect, will
and determination, without an adequate understanding, analysis and
definition of racism as the oppressing power system, will not be sufficient
to bring the long-sought goal of neutralizing that injustice and establishing
justice and peace for all people. Therefore, it is critical to have a
comprehensive analysis and definition of the opposing force. As a Black
behavioral scientist and practicing general and child psychiatrist, my
current functional definition of racism (white supremacy) is as follows: ,.,
the local and global power system  by persons
who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously
determined; this system consists of patterns of perception, logic. symbol
formation. thought, speech, action and emotional response. as conducted
simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics. education,
entertainment,labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war). The ultimate
purpose of the system is to prevent white genetic annihilation on Earth –
a planet in which the overwhelming majority of people are classified as
non-white (black, brown, red and yellow) by white-skinned people. All of
the non-white people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration)
compared to the genetically recessive white-skinned people.

Resurrection of Black Manhood: Becoming Warriors(Part 4 of 4)

This is a powerful lecture by the late great Amos Wilson.  He explains how black men need to become warriors as well as healers and builders. He breaks it down as only he can.  We need more warrior scholars like him. The time as come for black men to stand up and reclaim their neighborhoods. We need to be there to raise our children and protect black women. We need to be there to guide our sons and be a positive influence on our nephews and male cousins.  We need to also be there to protect our daughters. Also to love the mother of our daughters and show them how a real man is supposed to treat a woman.

Warrior Pic

An Afrikan warrior scholar refuses to be at peace with anything less than the total liberation of his people. In fact, he should daily affirm that “I am an Afrikan warrior, a warrior scholar. I refuse to be at peace with anything less.” He is culturally and politically a PanAfrikan nationalist. He believes that Afrikan people are Afrikans wherever we are found. I.e., the Afrikan warrior scholar believes that he should unselfishly employ the same dedication and energy to the defense and empowerment of Afrikans everywhere. The warrior scholar is not a racist. There is no confusion. His loyalty is conscious, race conscious, placing “Race First.” Or, as the Honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey would say, Afrikan warrior scholars are “Race Men.” They know that to be pro-Black is not to be anti-white unless Europeans interfere with them doing their work. The Afrikan warrior scholar is an educator, not a teacher. He politically explains conditions so that his children, his students, will become better warrior scholars than he. Teachers only dispense another’s information in order to train their students to become nonthinking citizens in an alien culture and society. The warrior scholar does not separate word from act. Leaving his people without a viable example to guide them in freeing their minds would be beneath his Afrikan reasoning. The Afrikan warrior scholar is a worker of the first order and, therefore, a leader by example. He is a doer, a nationbuilder, a maker of his people’s way. In this respect, he is a nonintellectual in that he practically applies his knowledge. He does not see war waged in some debate, whether great or small. There must be a field application of tactics and strategies. As an educator, he fits information into reality. He understands the cultural ourstory which has created his people’s conditions and distorted their vision. He studies the problem, internally and externally, not those victimized by it. He does not define Afrikans as the core problem. And whatever internal symptoms he observes are logically attributed to our “cultural misorientation.” He does not pass on his miseducation. He corrects it. He educates himself so that he can teach an ancient Afrikan truth. Therefore, he reads a revolutionary ourstory, the theory of causes and solutions to our people’s problems. He feeds himself and the community from the library he builds. The Afrikan warrior scholar unconditionally respects Afrikan women. He is their defender, their lover, their divine complement. The Afrikan warrior scholar is an entrepreneur. He instills independence in other Afrikans by finding a way to provide, regardless of circumstance. He creatively controls the process of production, the input, throughput and output. He distinguishes wealth from income and power from influence. He pursues empowerment, not subintegration, because he knows that the quality of a substance is felt through its ability to autonomously determine its path. He creates meaningful employment, even if only because he knows that poverty spawns antagonism among a people. The Afrikan warrior scholar is a perimeter defender. He is the first line of defense for our people, for our most valuable resources, our elders, women and children. He is always prepared for any exigency. Afrikan warrior scholars are exacters of justice, using nonviolence as only one tactic in a collection of measures making up his strategic arsenal. He speaks to Europeans in their language. And he also speaks in the language of those Afrikans who mentacidally seek to help destroy our community. His words cut deep and clean. No one leaves with doubt as to his intent. He protects his daughters from misguided sons and sons from confused peers. He is ready to die for his children, biological and otherwise.”
Warrior1

WARRIOR RULES:

– I have an unqualified love and respect for my/our children, complement, fellow warriors and Elders.

– I believe in our “Race First.”

– I do not sleep with my enemies. I have no white (or other nonAfrikan) bed partners and do not procreate with them.

– I am strictly heterosexual. I neither condone, support nor promote sexual insanity.

– I am not an interracialist. I do not have “white friends.”

– I do not associate with enemies unless my survival depends on it.

– I look to the wisdom of my Ancestors and Elders for direction.

– I am prepared for any exigency.

– I dress for war not display. A traditional sense of decency always guides my appearance.

– I daily listen to consciousness raising, revolutionary music.

– I am a thinker, not an intellectual. I apply what I know.

– I am deeply spiritual (not religious).

– I do not align myself with enemy based (communist/socialist/internationalist) organizations.

– I uncompromisingly work toward the complete and total liberation, empowerment and sovereignty of Afrikan people.

– I am not contradictory in what I think, say and do.

– I am resilient. I never give up.

Mwalimu K. Bomani Baruti