Tuesday 24th of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

my friend gaddafi and that racist rudyard......

BRICS vs White Man’s Burden: The era of ‘civilizing the savages’ is over

The era of Eurocentrism, when imperialist forces leveraged their self-appointed ‘mission’ to impose their diktats on developing nations, is over

The recent BRICS summit in Kazan is a potent symbol of shifting global dynamics, challenging the longstanding dominance of the West. 

 

By Constantin von Hoffmeister

 

Set against a backdrop where Western influence often presents itself through a superiority complex coupled with a condescendingly racist attitude, the BRICS alliance positions itself as an alternative. By rejecting Western models as the only route to progress, the BRICS nations propagate a multipolar world – one in which civilizations, each with its own norms and values, thrive independently. In Kazan, BRICS presented itself not just as an economic consortium but as a voice for genuine civilizational respect, countering Western narratives that have long scorned and looked down on non-Western societies.

Franz Boas, the pioneering anthropologist of the early 20th century, and Alexander Dugin, the contemporary Russian philosopher, at first glance may seem to exist within entirely different intellectual traditions. Boas is celebrated for his groundbreaking work in cultural anthropology, whereas Dugin is best known for his geopolitical and civilizational theories. However, beneath their distinct areas of expertise lies a shared commitment to opposing the ideologies that promote racism and cultural tyranny. Both thinkers, in their respective fields, call for the recognition and affirmation of cultural pluralism over universalist paradigms.

Boas, often considered the father of modern anthropology, revolutionized the way cultures were studied and understood. His concept of ‘cultural relativism’ was a radical departure from the prevailing Eurocentric anthropological tradition that positioned European culture at the summit of human achievement. Cultural relativism argues that each culture must be understood on its own terms, rather than being judged by external standards. In the potlatch ceremonies of the Kwakiutl, indigenous people from the Pacific Northwest, valuable goods such as blankets, copper plates, and food were ceremonially given to guests or rival groups, often in great quantities. Some items were even intentionally destroyed – burned or broken – to demonstrate the host’s wealth and social power. What may have appeared wasteful to Western observers was, in fact, a highly meaningful act within the Kwakiutl cultural context. Boas explained that this redistribution and destruction of wealth served to reinforce social hierarchies, build alliances, and redistribute resources within the community. Through these acts, the host asserted status and demonstrated generosity, and guests were obligated to reciprocate at future gatherings, ensuring cycles of mutual support and respect across clans.

Cultural relativism was not merely an academic position. It was a direct challenge to the racist and imperialist hierarchies that prevailed in Boas’ time. Boas opposed the classification of certain peoples as ‘primitive’ and others as ‘civilized’. Instead, he contended that all human societies have complex and valuable systems of meaning, each suited to its environment and historical circumstances. In this sense, Boas’ work was a direct counterpoint to the West’s racist assumptions and its justification of colonialism and imperialism under the guise of a ‘civilizing mission’.

Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden presented a moral obligation – a call for Western nations to ‘civilize’ so-called ‘savage’ lands. In its time, it offered a veneer of altruism to justify imperial conquest. Today, while the methods of control have shifted from direct colonial rule to more sophisticated means, the underlying assumption remains unchanged. Western liberalism, rather than using overt domination, now operates through soft power – media, cultural exports, ‘international law’, economic leverage – and military interventions. Yet beneath this modern guise lies the same conviction that fueled colonial expansion: the belief that Western civilization, with its moral and political frameworks, is superior and must be imposed upon the ‘unenlightened’ non-Western world. This enduring mindset continues to perpetuate a form of ideological imperialism, where the West assumes the role of moral arbiter, much as it did in Kipling’s time. When Western powers, cloaked in the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention’, launch military campaigns or impose crippling economic sanctions to force nations into adopting liberal ‘reforms’, they are merely continuing their age-old self-appointed mission: to impose their values, to dominate, to ‘civilize’.

Dugin’s notion of multipolarity parallels Boas’ rejection of Eurocentrism but within the realm of geopolitics. In a world that, until recently, was dominated by the unipolar hegemony of the West, Dugin advocates a multipolar order where various civilizations can coexist on an equal footing. He asserts that no single civilization, particularly the present incarnation of the West, should be regarded as a universal model for all of mankind. Just as Boas called for the recognition of cultural plurality, Dugin calls for the recognition of geopolitical and civilizational plurality, where different regions of the world – be it Eurasia, Latin America, or Africa – are recognized as centers of their own distinct identities and power.

The concept of multipolarity, like Franz Boas’ cultural relativism, is a rejection of the universalist assumptions that have long positioned the West as the ultimate arbiter of progress and human organization. Multipolarity confronts the notion that Western modernity, with its emphasis on liberal democracy and secular individualism, is a universal path for all civilizations. Instead, it asserts that each civilization embodies its own distinct spiritual, cultural, and political ethos, one of many expressions of mankind’s potential, formed over centuries of history and refined through an organic relationship with the land and the spirit of its people. Within this paradigm, Eurasia holds a position of extreme importance – not merely as a geographic expanse but as a vast civilizational complex that defies reduction to the Western categories of East or West.

Eurasia is a continent of deep historical synthesis, where Slavic, Turkic, and Mongolic peoples have coexisted and influenced one another, interweaving the spiritual depth of Orthodox Christianity with the steely resilience of the nomadic steppe cultures and the ancient wisdom of Asian philosophies. This Eurasian identity is not an artificial construction. It is the fruit of a millennia-long process of civilizational coalescence. Yet the West often fails to grasp this complexity, interpreting Eurasia through oversimplified, often hostile lenses that impose a foreign logic onto a culture fundamentally different in its structure, essence, and purpose. For Dugin, the ideology of Eurasianism is a restoration of this identity, an assertion that Eurasia, with its formidable spiritual heritage, is a civilization unto itself, distinct and sovereign, with the right to pursue a path that is neither a mimicry of the West nor a passive acceptance of Eastern alternatives. Like Boas, who saw each culture’s value within its own frame of meaning, Eurasianism in the context of multipolarity recognizes and upholds the dignity of each civilization, affirming its right to flourish according to its own principles, free from the homogenizing aggression of Western liberalism.

The shifting currents of the global order, exemplified by the rise of the BRICS coalition, serve as a powerful validation of the views articulated by both Boas and Dugin. BRICS emerges not merely as an economic consortium but as a counterforce to the unipolar dominance that the West has long imposed upon the world. The recent BRICS summit in Kazan thus has profound significance – not only for its tangible economic and political outcomes but for the symbolic defiance it represents against the West’s entrenched neocolonial attitudes. The BRICS nations, through this coalition, confront the deep-seated racism that continues to permeate Western power structures, which for centuries have perpetuated a model designed to marginalize, extract, and exploit non-Western nations under varying pretexts, from the overt imperialism of past eras to the subtler yet equally pervasive mechanisms of globalization.

The ascent of BRICS as a geopolitical counterweight affirms the feasibility of multipolarity as a tangible alternative to Western dominance. It is a clear testament to the rejection of Western universalism, heralding a world where multiple civilizations – each endowed with its own governance systems and values – are free to thrive, unbound by a singular model of modernity. Distinct centers of power engage with one another as equals, rather than yielding to the dictates of the West.

Boas’ concept of cultural relativism finds a parallel within the mission of the BRICS alliance. Just as Boas denounced the imposition of Western cultural standards upon non-Western societies, so too do the BRICS nations stand resolute against the imposition of Western economic and political frameworks upon the global majority. In their rejection of decadent Western doctrines and their embrace of alternative models for development, the BRICS nations embody a broader resistance to the cultural and political imperialism that Boas so sharply critiqued in his time, forging a path that respects each civilization’s unique trajectory.

At its core, BRICS’ challenge to Western supremacism is not just economic or geopolitical but deeply cultural. It is a demand for the recognition of different ways of life and governance. Just as Boas called for the world to value different cultures for their intrinsic worth, BRICS calls for the world to recognize the legitimacy of different political systems that do not conform to Western ‘democracy’. It is a collective demand for respect and dignity, free from the condescending attitudes that have long characterized the West’s approach to the global majority.

Dugin’s theory of a multipolar world, bolstered by the rise of BRICS, is a powerful shift in the currents of global consciousness – a break from the unipolar dominion forged in the aftermath of the Cold War. It signifies a new order where mighty state-civilizations, each with its own spirit and destiny, can flourish unshackled. In their own ways, both Boas and Dugin call for the unraveling of the racist and domineering creeds that have sought to bind mankind under one banner, one story, trampling the rich diversity of human progress beneath their weight.

https://www.rt.com/news/606865-west-will-never-civilize-brics/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without philosophers…”

         Gus Leonisky

 

GUSNOTE: GADDAFI WANTED TO DO WHAT BRICS IS DOING NOW, BUT THE WEST (VIA NATO — THAT FASCIST ORGANISATION) KILLED HIM....

 

AND PLEASE, MAY THE REST OF THE WORLD UNITE AGAINST THE TWINS OF DOOM — ISRAEL AND THE USA — TO BYPASS THE SANCTION REGIME IMPOSED ON CUBA....

libya.....

 

By Mustafa Fetouri

 

Brutally murdered 13 years ago, this leader is only growing more beloved

The late Muammar Gaddafi remains one of the most popular figures in Libya, even among the younger generation

October marked 13 years since Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was brutally murdered by a NATO-supported mob of rebels in circumstances still buried under a barrage of deliberate disinformation. Yet 13 years on, Gaddafi is probably the most popular figure in the North African country.

Is it just nostalgia that makes the general public yearn for a man who has long been dead, or is there something else that goes beyond mere nostalgia as a human emotion?

What happened? 

On September 23, 2009, in his first and only speech before the United Nations General Assembly, Muammar Gaddafi described the UN Security Council as council of “horror.” He explained that the council, by the UN charter, is responsible for peace in the world but has only brought “more wars and sanctions.” What he did not know at the time was that the same UN organ would, less than two years later, authorize his removal and ultimately his murder by adopting resolution 1973, which gave the green light to all UN member states to interfere in Libya as long they notified the UN Secretary General of their intention to do so.

Resolution 1973

Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, 2011, was the UNSC response to public demonstrations that engulfed parts of Libya in the previous month, in which people demanded better living conditions, housing, and jobs. By the time the issue was deliberated at the UN, what had been peaceful and legitimate public demonstrations had turned into an armed revolt led by various stakeholders, including Islamists and former terrorists, against the legitimate government.

The wave of public discontent in Libya was part of wider public awakenings that began in neighboring Tunisia before moving to Egypt. In both countries, the West attempted to save President Ben Ali in Tunisia and later his Egyptian counterpart, Hosni Mubarak, but failed. There were no calls for military intervention to “protect” civilians in either country. With Libya, it was a completely different matter.

Faced with armed groups seeking to destabilize the country, the Gaddafi government responded, just like any other respected government would do, by using force against the armed rebellion. Under Gaddafi, Libya had seen similar events in the previous four decades, where Western-supported attempts were made not only to kill Gaddafi but also to bring about regime change by force. The government used force to contain the demonstration, but specifically targeting the armed groups that had sprung up among the peaceful demonstrators.

In this chaos, many innocent people were killed and wounded, but nowhere near the inflated figures reported in Western media and publically talked about by Western politicians in their quest to widen the rift between the Libyan authorities and its citizens and to sow discord among the Libyans who were divided between supporters of Gaddafi and supporters of what became known as the February 17 Revolution. William Hague, the UK’s foreign minister at the time, for example, told the world’s media that Gaddafi had already fled the country and was on his way to Venezuela, when in fact Gaddafi never left Tripoli – so Hague misled public opinion, which further inflamed the situation.

Rush to action without facts

Under pressure from veto-wielding permanent superpower members, the UNSC passed resolution 1973 under the pretext of the ‘Right to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine that, controversially, allows the UN to use military force to protect civilians when their government fails to do so. Paragraph 4 of the resolution called on all world countries to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya, impose a no fly zone, and urged all UN member states to tighten the embargo already imposed on the country by UNSC resolution 1970, passed on February 26, 2011, referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC), to investigate the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly being committed on a large scale in Libya on the orders of Gaddafi himself, who was one of three officials indicated by the court.

Resolution 1970 was not passed based on concrete independent investigative reports of facts but, mainly, based on biased media reports. Neither the UN nor any of its relevant institutions investigated events on the ground to be able to lay blame, and the first official UN mission arrived in Libya in March and reported to the UNSC in April 2011. This means the UNSC adopted its two resolutions, 1970 and 1973, based on unverified media reports, unreliable witness statements and biased civil organizations accounts.

By the time the UNSC adopted resolution 1973, Libya was already in a full-swing civil war between the armed rebels and government forces that, in being dehumanized by biased Western media, were called “Gaddafi brigades.”

The rebels were actually a mix of terror organizations and locals who chose to fight the government. They included groups such as Al-Qaeda, Ansar Al-Sharia, Al-Qa’ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and remnants of other groups and Afghan war veterans who infiltrated the country.

By mid-March 2011, Libya was consumed by internal violent strife, its government boycotted by most countries, its voice drowned under the barrage of media lies and fake news, its officials banned from travel, and its leader being hunted day and night. The rebels fighting the government were being supplied, financed, armed, trained, and directed by the West and several Arab countries such as Qatar, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates.

The stage was set for NATO to take over the military intervention. In fact, France, the US, and UK had already started bombing Libya by launching the first wave of missile strikes on Libyan air defense sites and radars in order to prepare the ground for imposing a no-fly zone. Even civil security forces, manning checkpoints around Tripoli, were bombed. By the end of March 2011, Libya has become a “theatre of operations” and NATO launched “Operation Unified Protector” with an around-the-clock bombardment.

That meant that the strongest military alliance in human history had just launched its first war in North Africa since France was defeated in Algeria in 1962. By the end of its operation, NATO had killed hundreds of Libyan women and children, destroyed private properties and infrastructure, all in the name of reinforcing international law and protecting civilian while the real agenda was far more sinister. The scenes of chaos, destruction, displacements, and killings continued from March to October, in which the Libyan army managed to hold back the rebels on the ground while facing NATO air bombardments. On October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was murdered in gruesome scenes and his body, alongside the bodies of his son and his defense minister, displayed for the horrified public to see.

The real goals of the NATO operationin Libya

Murdering Gaddafi turned out to be the ultimate real goal of NATO’s campaign in Libya. The decision was made that he must be liquidated as a person and everything he represented as leader must be erased from the memory of his people and millions more across Africa to whom he was a source of inspiration as an honest African leader.

The bigger immediate objective was to transform Libya from an independent state with sovereign decision-making into a Western subordinate, chaotically run and unable to decide for itself on any major national issue including elections, economic policies, and management of its national wealth, including billions still frozen around the world.

To achieve that, the climate and environment of social solidarity which took Gaddafi decades to secure and strengthen was dismantled and killed as an idea, allowing the entire Libyan social fabric to be dismantled, ushering in an era of chaos and dependence on foreign powers.

Today, the West continues to make every effort to prevent the country from being reclaimed by its own people, even if that happens through ballot boxes brought by Western planes under the pretext of transforming Libya into a democratic paradise on the southern shore of the Mediterranean.

“Gaddafi did not die”

Yet after all these years, the man the West portrayed as evil and whom they destroyed Libya to remove, is still remembered and cherished by most Libyan as if he had not died at all.

In September, thousands of ordinary people took to the streets in dozens of cities, towns, and villages across the country to celebrate 55 years since Gaddafi came to power on September 1, 1969, in what became known as Al-Fatih Revolution. While commemorations have happened almost every year since 2011, this year’s festivities were notable for the large number of young people taking part. In Bani Walid, for example, the celebrations featured a parade led by a Gaddafi lookalike complete with body guards.

Ali Al-Kilani, a renowned poet and former Gaddafi aide, claims “Gaddafi did not die” because he made Libyans believe in themselves and “be proud of their independence and sovereignty.” Looking at the number of people who celebrated this year is proof that “he is still popular despite what has been done to erase him from people’s minds,” said Al-Kilani from his self-imposed exile in Cairo, Egypt.

To honour her father’s memory this year, Aisha Gaddafi, one of two daughters of the late leader, chose to exhibit her art work commemorating him in the State Museum of Oriental Art in Moscow. Invited by Igor Spivak, the chairman of the Russian Mideast Society, Aisha accepted the invitation after meeting Spivak in Oman, where she lives in exile. Inaugurating the show, she said, “I show these works for the first time to honour my father and my brother on the anniversary of their deaths.” Aisha, who lost her husband and two children in a NATO airstrike, added, “I can tell you that these pictures are painted not with my hand, but with my heart.”

Spivak said he wanted Aisha to exhibit in Moscow because people in Russia “love her, love her father, and want to see her art in Russia.”

Could popularity become votes?

The very fact that many Libyans still honour Gaddafi and remember him means that the top NATO goal of erasing his memory has failed. His popularity today could also play a decisive role in elections whenever they take place. His son Saif Al-Islam, who registered to contest presidential elections in December 2021, was tipped to win, but the vote was indefinitely postponed thanks to US and UK rejection of him being on the ballots.

The ambassadors of the UK and US to Libya intervened just before election day, on December 24, 2021, to voice their rejection of his nomination. They claimed that Saif Al-Islam is not a good choice for Libya as he is wanted by the ICC. Indeed, Saif Al-Islam has been indicted by the ICC, but Libyan courts have already exonerated him though a general amnesty law passed by the parliament in 2015. The young Gaddafi today is much more popular than any other potential nominee, and much of his popularity stems from his family name and the fact that he stood by his father during the war.

While Muammer Gaddafi still commands respect and loyalty among large sections of Libya, the country itself is unlikely to become stable, united, and peaceful anytime soon. Many observers, pessimistically, say that Gaddafi died and took Libya with him.

 

https://www.rt.com/africa/606790-gaddafi-died-leader-libya/

 

 

PREVENTING THE RISE OF AFRICA WAS THE GOAL OF THAT FASCIST ORGANISATION — NATO.

NATO IS STILL WORKING TO PREVENT THE RISE OF THE SOUTH.

BUT BRICS IS MANAGING TO OUTFLANK THE WEST AND HOPEFULLY THE ERA OF WESTERN EXPLOITATION OF THE WORLD IS ENDING....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without the aim to end slavery…”

         Gus Leonisky

 

 SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/41081

weaponising aid....

 

Weaponizing Aid: How USAID and the Global Fragility Act Sustain U.S. Imperialism in Libya    BY Tunde Osazua

 

On Friday, April 29, 2022, USLBA hosted a meeting with U.S. officials and U.S. corporate executives to discuss the implementation of the Global Fragility Act in Libya to "prevent conflict and promote stability". Photo: The U.S.-Libya Business Association

The Global Fragility Act is a mechanism through which the US gives itself the authority to utilize soft power in Africa through organizations like USAID. The act places a specific focus on Libya, which was destroyed by the U.S., and N.A.T.O. Using the management of aid infrastructure, USAID supports U.S. imperialist aims in maintaining instability and dominance over the country.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is presented as an agency to assist or "aid" in the positive development of Libya—and other African states—but in reality supports the same imperialist agenda that drove the 2011 military assault that destroyed Libya’s social and political fabric. The regime change operation in Libya, especially following the 2011 NATO overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, left the country in a state of perpetual chaos and factionalism. This instability serves as fertile ground for the expansion of U.S. influence through soft power mechanisms like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which, despite its humanitarian facade, works in concert with broader U.S. imperial objectives, as outlined in the Global Fragility Act (GFA), through which Libya is a “priority partner” country. .

USAID’s work in Libya began in 2011 , just after the brutal overthrow of Gaddafi, and it has since operated in alignment with broader U.S. military and political goals. The GFA, signed into law in 2019, provides a framework for this kind of meddling, claiming to promote "conflict prevention" and "stability" in so-called fragile states like Libya. Yet, this Act, much like USAID’s activities, is designed to maintain U.S. hegemony rather than genuinely support Libyan sovereignty. By focusing on "fragility," the GFA reframes U.S. interference as necessary and benevolent, while continuing to undermine Libya’s potential for self-determination.

A May, 2023 USAID report highlights the limited awareness Libyan citizens have of USAID’s activities, with only about 13 percent of surveyed Libyans having any knowledge of its work. The report emphasizes that those who are aware of USAID tend to view its political and economic impact positively, a correlation that reinforces the power of U.S. soft power to shape public perception. However, the motivations behind USAID’s work in Libya must be critically examined, particularly in the context of the Global Fragility Act and U.S. efforts to maintain control over Libya’s vast oil resources.

The low level of awareness of USAID in Libya is not surprising, considering the agency’s activities are often masked by a narrative of development and humanitarian assistance. What is less visible is the role USAID plays in supporting the same imperialist framework that AFRICOM and other U.S. military structures enforce. USAID embeds itself in Libya’s reconstruction process, positioning itself as an indispensable actor in Libya’s future, by selecting and creating Libyan civil society organizations and institutions[1] [2] [3]  to carry out this work. In Haiti, another ”priority country” for the U.S. through the Global Fragility Act, the plan is to use 250 civil society organizations picked/created by the USAID to influence public policy and decision making. It is not about empowering Libyans or fostering genuine stability—it’s about securing U.S. influence in a strategically vital, oil-rich region under the guise of development.

Yet, the same report reveals the deep skepticism many Libyans hold toward USAID, driven by perceptions of corruption, cultural incompatibility, and doubts about the true motivations behind U.S. involvement in their country. This skepticism is well-founded. USAID’s role in Libya is not neutral; it is part of the broader U.S. imperial strategy to control and exploit Libya’s resources, while preventing any form of governance that could challenge U.S. or Western interests.

The connection between USAID and the Global Fragility Act is crucial in understanding how U.S. foreign policy operates in Libya. The GFA seeks to create long-term, sustained involvement in "fragile" regions, under the pretext of preventing conflict and promoting stability. This is done by connecting the Department of Defense, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and USAID. But in reality, this sustained involvement is about ensuring that U.S. geopolitical and economic interests are protected. In Libya, this means maintaining control over oil production and thwarting the influence of rival powers like Russia and China.

The recent meetings between a Libyan ministerial delegation and U.S. officials in Washington further underscore how deeply intertwined U.S. interests are with Libya’s oil and energy sectors. These discussions, presented as efforts to strengthen international partnerships and foster economic development, serve U.S. geopolitical and economic agendas. The delegation, which included Libya’s ministers of oil and transportation, met with high-ranking U.S. officials such as National Security Advisor for North Africa David Linfield and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Africa and the Middle East Joshua Falls. These meetings centered around the return of U.S. companies to Libya, particularly in the oil and gas sectors, and the development of infrastructure—areas critical to U.S. strategic interests.

Libya’s collapse into factionalism and civil war is a direct consequence of U.S. and NATO destabilization, and the ongoing presence of USAID and AFRICOM only serves to prolong this chaos for imperial gain. The fact that USAID’s visibility is low among Libyans suggests that the U.S. is operating behind a veil of so-called development while continuing to extract Libya’s wealth and suppress any genuine attempts at sovereignty. The Global Fragility Act provides the framework for this exploitation, allowing the U.S. to rebrand its imperial machinations as humanitarianism.

As we scrutinize USAID’s role in Libya, it becomes clear that development aid is being weaponized to serve imperial interests. The campaign to shut down AFRICOM and remove U.S. forces from Africa is intimately tied to dismantling the soft power mechanisms, like USAID, that sustain imperialism. The Global Fragility Act is not a path to peace or stability for Libya—it is a tool designed to ensure the continued exploitation of Libya’s resources and the suppression of its people’s right to self-determination.

Libyans have seen firsthand the destruction wrought by U.S. intervention, and their skepticism toward USAID reflects a clear understanding that Western involvement is not for their benefit. As the campaign against AFRICOM and U.S. imperialism gains momentum, we must expose the role of agencies like USAID in facilitating these crimes. The struggle for African liberation depends not only on resisting military domination but also on challenging the soft power structures that reinforce imperialism under the banner of development.

Tunde Osazua is a member of the Black Alliance for Peace’s Africa Team and the Steering Committee of the International Campaign to Free Kamau Sadiki.

https://blackagendareport.com/weaponizing-aid-how-usaid-and-global-fragility-act-sustain-us-imperialism-libya

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without using pens as weapons…”

         Gus Leonisky