What is a warrior? What is an ignorant thug? What is a ruthless killer? What is a revolutionary? What does it mean to have courage? I’ve been asking these questions to people I know recently? In the film Black Panther the anti-hero is Erik Kilmonger. There have been many debates on Twitter,Facebook and YouTube about whether Killmonger was a hero or not. Killmonger’s main objective was to liberate oppressed black people all over the world. He wanted to level the playing field against white supremacy. And he was seen as the villain. Now don’t get me wrong,Killmonger was no angel. Far from it. He was ready to kill anything in his way. He grew up in poverty in a crime ridden city called Oakland. So he had a lot to be angry about. I find it interesting that although KIllmonger is seen as the villain,white supremacy is never named in the film. The word “racism” is never said in the film. It’s only implied. And that is the REAL source of his anger and his oppression. But anyway,nothing would stop him from completing his mission. Even with the odds against him he stayed focused on the mission at hand. But he was portrayed as an African-American thug. The real public enemy number one. This is why Black Panther is the hero in a white-created film. They don’t want children to admire the traits of Killmonger because he’s a threat to the racist power structure. That’s why I tell people Black Panther is full of anti-black propaganda. What exactly is propaganda? Propaganda is the effort to spread a belief or an opinion about a certain issue. Commercial advertisers,government,media,pressure groups and public officials all use propaganda. The whole point of propaganda is an attempt to get people to think a certain way about something. I feel propaganda is most effective when people don’t realize it as propaganda. This is why characters like Erik Killmonger are painted as the bad guy. His motives are liberating for black people but they portray him as a mindless thug so you associate the behavior with the ideology.
I’ve seen this pattern of painting revolutionaries as the anti-hero. I remember reading years ago that the Marvel characters Professor X and Magneto were based off of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Marvel comics founder Stan Lee also admitted that the X Men super powered mutants were based off of the black civil rights movement going on in the sixties. This is one of the reasons Magneto is seen as the evil villain. He wants to liberation of mutants against oppression. But when you listen to Magneto talk about the the situation of mutants he’s always making valid points. And he believes if mutants want true freedom they have to do it ” by any means necessary”.
Another character that was revolutionary was Koba from The Planet of The Apes. Koba believed that apes shouldn’t trust humans. The main leader of the apes was Caesar. He and Caesar rarely saw eye to eye. I also noticed that Caesar was a darker skinned ape. Whereas Caesar has a more light skinned face. Koba also had a scarred face from the torture he received from evil humans. So Koba even looked like an ugly monster. This is also subliminal programming. It’s to give the impression that if someone is unattractive then they must be evil. Which we know is not true. I’ve met plenty of good looking people that were selfish,vain,manipulative and egotistical. But people are trained to believe that exterior beauty translates to inner beauty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s a synopsis from Gaspar Yanga:
“In the begging of this movie, some scientist wander into the apes territory ( theme of White innocence) and have a dispute with the Apes, in which one Ape is shot. Caesar, being the leader tells the people to leave and takes the injured Ape back home. Koba, having been abused by humans (Europeans), tells Caesar they should follow the humans back to where they are at. Koba comes back and tells Caesar, that he believes they should attack the humans before they get stronger. Caesar makes a snarky comment about how the only thing that Koba, learned from humans is hate. ( theme of seeking retribution against Europeans is wrong).
Koba, goes back into the human’s camps, only to find they are stockpiled with WEAPONS. The innocent humans that Caesar loves so much has a army reserve of military grade weapons. Some of the humans go back to the Apes home, while Koba was gone, in order to seek Caesar’s approval to search for a dam which could power their city. Upon, rushing back to tell Caesar of this great potential threat of humans, Koba is furious to find out that that humans have been allowed back into the Apes territory, along with the human that shot an ape named Ash. Koba and Caesar fight before Koba can tell Caesar, that the humans are preparing to for some type of war with all the weapons. Koba comes up with this genius plan, he goes back to the human camp to steal a gun so he can use it to shoot Caesar and tell the Apes that a human shot Caesar at night and that they should attack the humans. Koba’s brilliant plan works. Koba shoots Caesar at night time while some of those humans are in camp and he runs to tell the other Apes, that humans shot Caeser. Well, during the Ape attack on the humans, Koba gives a command to kill this human to another ape, this Ape refuses, Koba pats him on the back, then drags him by the head and throws him off the ledge showing the other apes who is the king of the hill. Koba, then arrest all those who are loyal to Caser and like humans. Koba is an example of supreme intelligence, military strategy, and brilliance. He removes a weak leader with a brilliant plot. He then consolidates power through force (Mao style) and he units the Apes, around their Ape identity. Koba is the ultimate Ape Nationalist and Freedom Fighter. The only thing that Koba does not tolerate is softness for enemies, he considers that WEAKNESS.
Caesar, in talking to the “GOOD HUMAN” (WHITE), says this ” Ape start war, Human will not forgive”. Caesar, blames his own people for the war. The humans created the experimental drug, the humans abused the apes giving them a reason to never trust them and the humans were trying to recolonize the world. Caesar, blames Koba and his people for starting a war that was caused by the humans (Whites). This, of course, is how the warped mind of the European is even in his movies and how he plants this false consciousness in others (mostly Black Christians). The writers actual ignore the history of the Apes and manipulates Caesar into this self hating, self loathing ape who has a soft spot in his heart for humans. Koba was punished in the movie for: 1. Never forgiving humans 2. Loyalty to his own kind and Caesar is made a hero for 1. Forgiving the Europeans 2. Seeing the good in all people.”
The problem is people want a kind and sweet revolution. They don’t know what it takes to get real freedom and liberation. A real warrior will do whatever he needs to do to get freedom. A warrior is usually a person experienced in warfare. Or a person that has shown great vigor,aggression and courage. In a white racist society they want to demonize revolutionaries so people don’t see them as heroes. These films want you to identify with the so-called heroes. But if you’re an oppressed group you should be rooting for the revolutionary. When the European colonizers came to America that killed everything that wasn’t European. They killed millions of Native Americans. They killed millions of Africans. They raped women and killed babies. They were heartless and ruthless and their quest for power and domination. They were bloodthirsty and heartless! That’s what they did in the America’s and in Africa. They know what it takes to achieve a revolution. This is what brave Haitians did in the revolution in 1804. These were real Africans warriors that knew who was the enemy. They couldn’t show any weakness against the evil Frenchmen. And these are the qualities that fictional characters like Killmonger,Magneto and Koba possess. This is why it’s important to recognize propaganda when it’s in front of you. And these Hollywood films are full of them. When I was younger I couldn’t see it. But my eyes are wide open now. They’re training you to root for the real villains. So in essence,they have you going against your own self interest. And ultimately your freedom.
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
ASE'(ah-shay): A YORUBA WORD MEANING POWER,AUTHORITY AND COMMAND. IT IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE WHAT YOU SAY HAPPEN. “SO IT IS” OR “SO IT WILL CERTAINLY BE.”
Nobody is born a Warrior.
You choose to be one when you refuse to back down.
You choose to be one when you stand up after getting knocked down.
You choose to be one because if not,who?