Churchill & British Empire Make Hitler’s Germany Look Like A Street Gang

Churchill mistakenly believed that Aryans were white.  He also “learned” at school that Britain’s colonies were the superior “white” man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation.  Later, as an MP he demanded a rolling programme of more conquests, based on his belief that “the Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.

Britain’s Monster Unleashed

As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples”.  He charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn.

The Noble Savage

In the Swat valley, now part of Pakistan, he gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops. He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages”.

Concentration Camps- Mass Killing Dutch & Africans

British Concentration Camp

When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced “the minimum of suffering”. The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his “irritation that Kaffirs [Niggers] should be allowed to fire on white men”. Later, he boasted of his experiences there: “That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about.”

Religious Hatred Against Christians

As Colonial Secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland’s Catholic civilians.

Saddam Hussein’s Inspiration to Gas Kurds

Churchill & Imperial England gassed Kurds decades before Saddam’s Iraq

When the Kurds rebelled against British rule, he said: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes…[It] would spread a lively terror.”

Engineered Famine & Genocide in India

When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” As the resistance swelled, he announced: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” This hatred killed.

Nazi Concentration Camp? No, Colonial Indian Famine

In 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits”. At other times, he said the plague was “merrily” culling the population.

Skeletal, half-dead people were streaming into the cities and dying on the streets, but Churchill – to the astonishment of his staff – had only jeers for them. This rather undermines the claims that Churchill’s imperialism was motivated only by an altruistic desire to elevate the putatively lower races.

Nazis, by Comparison

The NSDAP (“Nazis”), fought a war that lasted a few years.  Churchill’s horrors spanned decades.  Hitler’s Germany fought a war on two West Asian (“European”) fronts.  Churchill’s England’s atrocities spanned 3 continents.  There really is no comparison.  The Prime Minister meets with the monarch regularly, so the King and later Queen obviously approved and encouraged these activities.  England is incomparably worse than the worse you’ve heard about Nazi Germany.

Success Is The Best Revenge

Family of Churchill Survivor

This, in turn, led to the great irony of Churchill’s life. In resisting Germany, he produced some of the richest prose-poetry in defence of freedom and democracy ever written. It was a cheque he didn’t want black or Asian people to cash – but they refused to accept that the Bank of Justice was empty. As the Ghanaian nationalist Kwame Nkrumah wrote: “All the fair, brave words spoken about freedom that had been broadcast to the four corners of the earth took seed and grew where they had not been intended.” Churchill lived to see democrats across Britain’s dominions and colonies – from nationalist leader Aung San in Burma to Jawarlal Nehru in India – use his own intoxicating words against him.

Daughter of Colonial England Survivor

Ultimately, the words of the great and glorious Churchill who resisted dictatorship overwhelmed the works of the cruel and cramped Churchill who tried to impose it on the darker-skinned peoples of the world. The fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the Kikuyu “savages” is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.

——

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

17/07/201517/07/2015 by taj-akoben Categories: white supremacyTags: bengal famine, black and tan, boer wars, british empire, churchill, churchill aryan, churchill quotes, colonial england, dark side of winston churchill, gandhi churchill, gassed kurds england, imperial england, mau mau rebellion obama, obama's grandfather, white supremacy, winston churchill, zulu wars 1 Comment

Advice to a Single Mother, from Her Son

Overview

This isn’t a criticism of single mothers- it’s a criticism of what some single mothers do wrong with their sons.  Not all situations are the same.  Sometimes both parents are “to blame”.  Sometimes no one is.  Everyone loses at the blame game.  It’s time to take an honest, non-judgmental look at emotional abuse and the cycle of broken lives it perpetuates.  )I want this to be a balanced posts of do’s and don’ts, but I don’t know any single mothers well, so put positives in the comments and I’ll insert them into the article!)

Summary

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

According to the author Shawn James*, “contrary to the belief of most feminists and liberals, a woman CANNOT be a mother and a father to a boy. Nor can she raise a boy to become a man.  Only a man can teach a man how to be a Real Man.”  Here is a summary of his analyses and observations.  (Some points assume the father can, would, and should be in his son’s life, which isn’t always the case.  Read the full article here.)

1. Speaking negatively about their father.  The boy grows up doubting himself. They think that there’s something wrong with them.
2. Saying negative things about men.  This makes little boys afraid of embracing their masculinity and their male identity.
3. Teaching their sons to disrespect their fathers’ authority.  Boys growing up to disrespect of their fathers have no respect for all other men in society.
4. Teaching their sons to disrespect male authority and male authority figures.  This is why many boys who come from single parent homes have a hard time adjusting to the real world.
5. Projecting anger at the father onto the son.  These emotionally abusive blows knock boys down for the count emotionally before they even get up to become men.
6. Not allowing their father to see them.  Boys need that relationship with their father to gain a sense of themselves and to understand their masculinity and male identity.
7. Bringing in substitutes for a father.  Oftentimes he winds up just as overwhelmed and frustrated as the single mother is because he has no understanding of the family’s history or the previous history of the child.
8. Coddling their sons.  Their sons never grow up learning they have to take responsibility for their actions.
9. Inconsistent discipline.   Boys never learn that for every action there will be the same reaction every time.
10. Teaching boys to be emotional.  This loss of self-control can cause him to be seen as weak by other men and make him a target for the abuses of both predatory men and women.
11. Not teaching their sons what boundaries are.  They don’t know when they’ve gone TOO FAR. They violate people’s personal space. And they can’t take NO for an answer.
12. Not teaching their sons coping skills.  When things like rejection, failure and loss come into their lives they don’t grieve, hurt for a while and move on like Real Men do.
13. Establishing a co-dependent relationship.   They use their sons to get their emotional and other needs met it literally sucks the life out of these boys, preventing them from growing up to become healthy, functional men who can have a relationship with women his own age.
14. Smothering.   All it leads to is him growing up dependent on women for his existence.
15. Bullying.  Single mothers often use threats, intimidation and verbal abuse to control their sons because they become frustrated when they act in masculine ways they don’t understand.
16. Trying to run his life.  Boys have grow up and learn how to do things for themselves if they’re going to survive out there.
17. Thinking she can raise a man be a man on her terms.  There are only some lessons a man can teach a boy about life, and women need to understand this.
18. Trying to turn their sons into “Perfect” people.  Boys who grow up to become men who are afraid of taking risks. Men who are always playing it safe. Men who are nothing more than cowards.
19. Not encouraging them or supporting them in their quest to become independent men.  without that boy to maintain that co-dependent relationship with them, they’ll wither away and die pathetic lonely women. Or worse, they fear that their sons will find out the TRUTH regarding the relationship between her and his father.
20. Not encouraging boys to embrace their masculinity.  By emasculating him and destroying his masculinity and male identity, she hopes to get back at that man who she thinks did her wrong.
21. Not encouraging boys to embrace their sexuality. there was nothing wrong with sex. There was just something wrong with the way she had relationships with men that led to her having bad experiences.
22. Misleading boys about Male/female relationships.  The Single mother may want a man who is their friend after her failed relationships with men. But younger women who are functional and want a good relationship DO NOT want their man to be their best friend.
23. Telling boys that all women are whores.  The goal of this shaming language is to make the boy back away from a possibly healthy relationship with a woman outside of her and continue maintaining a co-dependent relationship they have with each other.
24. Sabotaging his relationships with women.  Single mothers hate their sons having girlfriends because they fear that as he gets closer to this woman, he’ll start establishing healthy boundaries that will sever the emotional hose they have hooked up to them.

Conclusion

It takes two to make a woman a single mother.  Fathers have a role to play.  I’m not judging anybody.  I will say, though, that every parent who wishes the best for their children will do everything, looking past their pride, their past, their needs and their pain, to give them the best chance in life by avoiding obvious mistakes.

———-

* Freelance Writer.  Here’s his explanation of his post, in the comments to the original article:

I’m not implying anything. I’m just stating the facts.
Let’s look at the statistics in the Black community which is 70 percent single mothers and 70 percent of all births are out of wedlock:

• 70 Percent of all Black males born to single mothers wind up dropping out of school before they finish High School (Some even quit Junior High schoo,)
• 70 Percent of all Black males born to single mothers usually wind up in some type of trouble with the criminal justice system before they turn 18,
• 70 percent of all Black males Born to single mothers wind up incarcerated,
• 70 Percent of all Black males born to single mothers usually wind up unemployable.

When boys are born to a single mother they’re usually put on a road to destruction.

One of my family members is a NYC school teacher and sees the dysfunction and chaos caused in the lives of boys due to living in these single parent female headed homes. These boys are insecure and act out because there is no man there to meet his emotional needs.

Why are boys today softer and more effeminate than in previous generations? Why do they attach themselves to images of males on TV? Because THERE IS NO FATHER IN THE HOME TO MODEL MANHOOD FOR THEM.

You do need a father to raise a son. Only a man can teach another man to be a man. Now I’m sorry if things with the man you chose to be with didn’t work out, but without a positive male in a boy’s life he is not getting what he needs emotionally and mentally to grow up to become a functional adult.

A woman CANNOT teach a boy to become a man because she DOES NOT KNOW what it is to BE A MAN or what a MAN will face in the world.

I grew up with a part-time Dad and now I’m just realizing what I missed out on because I didn’t have a man in my life full-time to teach me about manhood. This piece was to let know women know the numerous ways they harm their sons by depriving them of a father.

10/07/2015 by taj-akoben Categories: emasculation, masculismTags: absentee fathers, african-american single mothers, baby daddy, baby mama drama, black masculinity, castration of black african-american males, deadbeat dads, effeminization of black african-american male, emasculation of black african-american male, feminism, masculine identity, masculinity, masculism, nation-building, out-of-wedlock births african-american, shawn james, single mothers, unwed mothers, Ways Single Mothers Destroy Their Sons 3 Comments

me of all ages

03/07/2015 by taj-akoben Categories: black historyTags: amenhotep iii, Buddha, daniel oliver matrix, lusius quietus Leave a comment

How Do We Know Rachel Dolezal Is “White”?

Where’s the line between a “black” person who can pass for “white”, and a “white” person who can pass for “black”?

Before the One-Drop Rule

I’m “white”…

America used to classify its ethnic African minorities into two categories.

Those with no known non-African ancestry were known as “Black”, “Negro” (apparently for Spanish speakers) and “Colored” because everyone else, apparently, was clear.

Anyone with African and any other ancestry, especially west Asian (“European”), were known as Mulattoes.

West Asians (also known as “Europeans”) with no visible or known African ancestry, were called “White” even though white is a color, so technically they were “colored”, too.  (If you are confused about the use of the terms ‘west Asia’ and ‘West Asian’, click here.)

At some point, the ‘Mulatto’ category was abolished, and all people with any African ancestry were lumped into the first category.  Thus formed the “One-Drop Rule”:  if you had any known or visible African ancestry, you were Black/Negro/Colored.

But what about people with so little African ancestry, or specifically so few African genes expressed in their phenotype, that they appeared West Asian or “white”?

They ‘passed’ for “white”.  They hid their African heritage, abandoned the non-passable members of their family (often at their suggestion) and blended into the dominant west Asian society.  They did this to qualify themselves for affirmative action, also known as “white” privilege: 100% quotas at colleges and universities, 100% quotas on in the workforce, 100% quotas in the military, access to credit and housing, and basic human rights.

…no wait: I’m “black”…

You never know who could be passing for “white”.  With as much as 25% African ancestry, a person can have blonde hair and blue eyes.  Even without those, a person with African could have little enough of it showing to not be swarthier, as Benjamin Franklin, put it, than the swarthier races of west Asia.  (Keep in mind, as the first and frequent settlers in West Asia, Africans have contributed considerably to their genes and phenotype.)

It doesn’t take much to pass for “white” when Italians can, too.

More importantly, a person could be passing and not know it.  If your father passed with 25% African ancestry, then you are a full 1/8^th (12.5%) African, but your father obviously wouldn’t have told you.  Keep in mind that 12.5% is as much west Asian ancestry as the average African-American has, after centuries of pure Africans mixing with multi-ethnic and/or west Asians.

In fact, an estimated 28 million, representing ~10%, of west Asian Americans have African ancestry.  Those “white” people are “black” (according to the One-Drop Rule) and don’t even know it!  There are almost as many “whites” with “black” blood than there are “blacks”!

What About Rachel?

Is she in that 28 million?

She wouldn’t even know it if she was, like the white supremacist who found out he was 14% African (making him, therefore, “black”). So how do we know she’s not?  How do we know that, according to the one-drop rule she shouldn’t be called “black” or African-American (Spanish was dropped as an official language at some point, so “Negro” is out of fashion)?

Only a genetic test could prove she has no African blood, and if she does, she’s “black”.  This isn’t a stretch.  We regularly celebrate and/or out supposedly “black” people who look completely white, because they have a mixed ancestor even generations ago.

Them Genes

Genes affect more than just phenotype.  That’s why Don Cheadle, with dark brown skin, tightly-curled hair, and broad facial features, can still be 19% west Asian:  his west Asian genes don’t express themselves in his phenotype.

His west Asian blood doesn’t show on his face

There are genes for everything:  immunity, hormones, metabolism and a lot of things we don’t think about.  Genes also affect behavior and personality.  Genes are even passed through breast milk- and how many west Asian Americans have been suckled by African women throughout history?  What’s more, memory is passed through genes.

So it’s perfectly normal, or at least possible, for a person to have genes affecting those areas coming from an ancestor that they don’t physically resemble.

This explains “white” people who identify with a distant African ancestor, and why so many African-looking people have difficulty opposing “white” supremacy:  it’s in their blood.

Gray Area

“Race is a social construct.”

That really is true.

Where I live in Arabia, “blackness” is defined by the opposite of the one-drop rule:  if your skin is not very dark, or if you have loosely-curled hair, or a thin nose or lips- signs of possible non-African ancestry, you’re NOT “black.”

My dark-skinned African-American friend, who inherited wavy hair from his Hispanic mother, was told by his Afro-Arab wife that he’s “white”!  “White” to them means one-drop of non-African blood!

Further, Arabs identify a person by his or her father.  No matter who the mother is, the child is an Arab if the father is Arab.  There are Indonesians who are 100% Indonesian in language and appearance, but are considered Arabs because there is an unbroken paternal line to Yemen.

By that logic, by having a “white” forefather, many African-Americans are actually “white”!

For Jews, it’s the complete opposite:  the child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, no matter who the father is.

By that logic, my dark-skinned African-American friend is “white” because of his West Asian maternal grandmother.  And the dark-skinned son of my friend, who has a west Asian mother and ethnic African father, is also “white”.

And I have one friend who is “white” to the Arabs because his skin is light brown, “black” to Americans because his father is ethnically African, and Jewish to the Jews because he has a Jewish mother.  He should go on tour!

A Black White Jew

The American concept of race, and every concept of race, and the concept of race itself, are all stupid.  Black?  White?  So what’s a “mixed” person, then-  Grey?  What should I call my friend’s wife who has a Chinese grandfather- Dark Yellow?  We’re just making it up as we go along- and mostly getting it wrong…

Don’t Ask Rachel

I’m not defending or attacking Rachel Dolezal.  Her family and identity issues are hers and her family’s:  not ours.

I just want to know why African-Americans get so happy when they find out a “white” person is really black, but offended when a “white” person says they are “black”.

She was denied a place on the Rose Parade for being “black.” 60 years later, we celebrate her getting justice.

I wanna know how a west Asian woman pretending to be African can provide more leadership than ethnic Africans who claim to be African, and are supposedly proud of it.

That’s what matters- not what she did, but what you have.

Or haven’t…

18/06/201510/01/2016 by taj-akoben Categories: assimilation, biologyTags: affirmative action, african ancestry, black identity, blackface, blue-vein society, dolezal, dolezal naacp, identity crisis, mulatto, one-drop rule, race is a social construct, rachel dolezal, tranracialism, transracial, white privilege, whiteface, woman pretends to be black 9 Comments

…Speak so loudly… from Ralph Waldo Emerson

Royal TKO Media: A Speakers Management Bureau

Think about this one… and what *we* (my little family and I)are going to DO is enjoying every moment of this beautiful day.  What do you choose to do?

#lovealways
TeMeka

#inspiration #motivation #passion #integrity #perseverance #motivationalspeakers #leadership

View original post

17/05/2015 by taj-akoben Categories: Uncategorized Leave a comment

Jesus with Dreadlocks: an illustrated guide to Christian and Islamic descriptions of the Messiah

The popular image of a West Asian (“European”) Jesus is the exact opposite of his description in Christian, and Islamic, sources. So what did he look like? What kind of man’s return are Christians and Muslims waiting for?

qãhırıï

The popular image of a West Asian (“European”) Jesus is the exact opposite of his description in Christian, and Islamic, sources.  So what did he look like?  How can we recognize him upon his return?

“It doesn’t matter what Jesus looked like.”

This is an automatic response whenever the discussion is about someone being dark-skinned or African.  Whenever that person is pale-skinned, the matter is taken at face value.  That is the author’s opinion, but since the evidence is only anecdotal, we will explore this claim of colorblind religion according to the sources.

That’s a very unChristian thing to say.  The authors of several books of the Old and New Testaments were very careful to describe the skin color and hair texture of Jesus (as will be presented below).  The founders of Christianity, who debated heatedly about which books to include in the Bible, chose to include these descriptions. …

View original post 2,036 more words

03/05/2015 by taj-akoben Categories: Uncategorized Leave a comment

“You can be a man in bed, but outside of it …”: the tragedy of hyper-sexualization of the black man in new prime-time novela

31/03/2015 by taj-akoben Categories: Uncategorized Leave a comment

Diop: Arab/Islamic Invasion of Africa “A Figment of the Imagination”

Much has been made of Arab invasions of Africa: … in Black Africa they are figments of the imagination. -Cheikh Anta Diop

The unconscious community is confused.  Especially about Islam.  One minute, as Moors, Muslims are the pride of African civilization, giving knowledge to the cave men West Asia (“Europe”) (who had actually been out of caves for MILLENIA, with little things like the Roman Empire to their credit.)  The next minute Muslims are the enemies of African civilization, interrupting the building of pyramids in Kemet (even though it had been colonized by Romans and Persians for CENTURIES before Islam).

So which one is it?  My advice is to take it from someone like the revered scholar Cheikh Anta Diop over a Facebook revolutionary who can drop names but won’t quote a book:

While the Arabs did conquer North Africa by force of arms, they quite peaceably entered [dark brown] Africa: the desert always served as a protective shield. From the time of the initial Umayyad setbacks in the eighth century, no Arab army ever crossed the Sahara in an attempt to conquer Africa, except for the Moroccan War of the sixteenth century. During the period of our study, from the third to the seventeenth centuries [Islam arose in the 7th century], not one conquest was ever launched by way of the Nile: that of the Sudan, accomplished with the help of England, came only in the nineteenth century. Nor was there ever any Arab conquest of Mozambique of any other East African territory. The Arabs in these areas, who became great religious leaders, arrived as everywhere else individually and settled in peacefully; the owe their influence and latter acceptance to spiritual and religious virtues. The Arab conquests dear to sociologist are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality.  To this day no reliable historical documents substantiate such theories.  (101-102)

No Arabs invaded Sub-Saharan Africa because no Arabs could have.  The African imperial militaries were too strong.

These empires, defended when necessary by hundreds of thousands of warriors, and having their centralized political and administrative organization, were much too powerful for a single traveler, thousands of miles from home, to try any sort of violence against them. (91)

The Empire of Ghana… was defended by two hundred thousand warriors, forty thousand of them archers.  Its power and reputation, renowned as far as Baghdad in the East, were no mere legend:  it was actually a phenomenon attested to by the fact that for 1250 years a succession of Black emperors occupied the throne of a country as vast as all of [West Asia], with no enemy from without nor any internal tensions able to dismember it. (91)

African empires were so strong, that far from invading them, the Arabs asked them for help!

The might of the Empire [of Mali] was such that the Arabs at times called on it for military aid.  Such was the case, according to Khaldun, of El Mamer, who fought the Arabo-Berber tribes from the region or Uargla, in the North Sahara.  He appealed to Kankan Mussa, on the latter’s return from Mecca, to come to his aid militarily. (93)

Any Arab traveler to such vast, mighty empires could only have been a subject, or at best, a guest of the ruler.

Contrary to the notions prevailing today, the relationship then existing between [pale-skinned people] and [brown-skinned people] could not have been those of masters to slaves.  (93)   Some of them thus traditionally took on the role of jesters at royal African courts. (95) 

A passage from Ibn Battuta, who visited that very Empire of Mali, clearly reveals the state of mind and the pride of Africans of this period (1352).  The border regions of the Empire, such as Ualata, at the edge of the Sahara, were governed by Black farbas who levied customs duties and other taxes on caravans bringing merchandise into the country.  Upon arrival, the merchants had to clear administrative formalities with them, before being allowed to carry on their trade.  It was in such circumstances that Ibn Battuta, accompanying one of these caravans, met the farba of Ualata, Hussein.

 

Our merchants stood up in his presence and, even though they were close to him, he spoke to them through a third person. This was a mark of the little consideration he had for them and I was so unhappy at this that I regretted bitterly having come to a country whose inhabitants display such bad manners and give evidence of such contempt for [pale-skinned] men.

 

Ibn Battuta was an eyewitness;  it is difficult to contradict him regarding the feelings and attitudes he attributes to the speaker.  But, if the pride and dignity of the farba are beyond question, the contemptuous intentions attributed to him by Battuta seem to derive from the latter’s ignorance of the proper ceremonials governing receptions and audiences of any chieftain.  As we have already seen in chapter IV, the latter addresses a crowd only through a herald;  this was how the farba must have acted at his own court in Ualata. (93-4)

In actuality, when far from their homeland, the Arabs were often led by their isolation to adapt to the [brown-skinned] African milieu.  Some of them thus traditionally took on the role of jesters at royal African courts.  Though never before emphasized, this aspect of the relations between the two cultures was no less ancient or general.  Khaldun thus relates the story of two Arab courtiers, Abu-Ishac el Toneijen-El-Mamer, who were part of Mansa Musa’s entrourage on his return from Mecca.

“We were part of the royal cortège and even outranked the viziers and heads of state.  His Majesty listened with pleasure to the tales we told him and, at each stopping-place, he rewarded us with several kinds of foods and sweets.” (95)

The UNconsciousness community has a hidden inferiority complex.  On the one hand, they claim that “Blacks” are gods, possessors of divine melanin, masters of the universe, and the only true humans.  On the other hand, they claim that every other “race” has been conquering and enslaving “Blacks” all over the globe.  One minute they’re gods, the next minutes they can’t be racist because they can never have enough power to oppress cavemen/devils.  They’ll talk Kemet all day, but how many cats are down to marry their sisters?

I didn’t think so (& I was hoping not!)

You don’t know what you’re talking about.  You’re not thinking.  You’re UNconscious

The UNconscious community, put simply, doesn’t know what it’s talking about.  UNconscious people are addicted to soundbites and Facebook ‘likes’.  They put African Consciousness scholars on Facebook memes, but fail to read their books.  It’s not about facts, but feelings.

For all their factoids, they aren’t bringing anything new, just reactionary Afro-centrism (unconsciousness) that in reality just parrots the arguments of “white” nationalists:  whatever they say, we say the opposite:

• “White” “Aryans” claimed to be Germanic and Hindu at the same time, now “Black” conscious websites are claiming to Kemetic and Hindu (kundalini, yoga, etc.)

See, we’re totally different.

• They’re pure blood makes them superior;  our melanin makes us superior.
• They called us subhuman apes, we call them subhuman neanderthals.
• They said “race”-mixing is unnatural;  now we say the same.

“Just because we’re both racist against mixing “races” doesn’t mean we have anything in common.”

The list goes on.  “This isn’t an ideology- it’s “defensive racism”:  Adopting the enemy’s values in order to compete against the enemy ie. conceding to play the enemy’s game.

 All that god talk is fine if you like it, but deep down inside all you really wanna do is play victim to your devil.

Africa Was Never Perfect

Your ancestors were probably NOT kings.  The majority of the population in any empire or kingdom is of modest birth, from craftsmen and farmers all the way down to slaves.  You’re more than likely a descendant of one of them.  Go to Africa and tell somebody you’re a king (or king’s descendant).

Here’s some real truth:  The truth about Africa is that it had slaves, it had slave markets, and anyone, including foreigners, including “white” foreigners, could buy.

REAL research shows that African slave markets sold Africans to any buyer

The Empire [of Ghana] first opened itself to the world-at-large through commerce;  it already enjoyed international repute which would be inherited and extended by the future empires of Mali and Sonhgai.  But domestic slavery at this time was rife in African society:  one could sell his fellow man to another citizen or a foreigner.  Which explains why Berber and Arab merchants, grown rich since settling at Aoudaghast, though still vassals of the Black sovereign, could acquire Black slaves on the open market.  Some individuals in the city owned as many as a thousand slaves. (91)

This shows the peaceful means by which the [pale-skinned] world could possess [brown-skinned] slaves.  It was not through conquest, as has often been asserted.  … (91-92)

All the [paled-skinned] minorities living in Africa might own [brown-skinned] slaves, but slaves and [pale-skinned] masters alike were all subjects of a [brown-skinned] Emperor:  they were all under the same African political power.  No historian worth his salt can permit the obscuring of this politico-social context, so that only the one fact of Black slavery emerges from it. (92)

Admitting Sub-Saharan pre-colonial slavery does not justify the genocidal horrors of the Jewish-led Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, or of colonial slavery.  Denying it does.  Denying the truth feeds the lie.  So does not knowing it.

No one needs to steal our history if we’re willing to hide it from ourselves.

The UNconscious Community needs to learn to read instead of react.

All quotations from Diop, Cheikh Anta, Precolonial Black Africa.  Chicago:  Lawrence Hill Books.  1987.

30/03/201530/03/2015 by taj-akoben Categories: black history, hidden black history, stolen black historyTags: Africa is bigger than Kemet, african consciousness, afrocentrism, arab conquest of africa, arab courtiers africa, arab courtiers mali, arab historian bakri africa, arab historian ibn battuta africa, arab historian ibn khaldun africa, arab invasion of africa, arab slave trade, arab travelers, bakri, black conscious community, convert or die islam, defensive racism, empire of ghana, empire of mali, ibn battuta, ibn khaldun africa, indigenous african spirituality, islam spread by the sword, islamic conquest of africa, islamic invasion of africa, mansa musa, muslim conquest of africa, slavery in africa 49 Comments

More Muslim Swastikas

To add to the article Muslim Use of the Swastika, here’s one more example, form our friends at Pro-Swastika:

http://proswastika.org/news.php?extend.526.6

The embassy of Pakistan at 62 Bulevar kneza Aleksandra Karađorđevića in Belgrade

22/03/2015 by taj-akoben Categories: ASIATIC HISTORYTags: aryan swastika, history of swastika, islamic swastika, meaning of swastika, modern use of swastika, muslim swastika, pakistan swastika, punjabis are aryans Leave a comment