HE DEATH OF THE AFRICAN PERSONALITY AND THE REBIRTH OF THE KEMETIC CONSCIOUSNESS.

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN MAAT AND ISFET (EIGHTEEN)

The death of the African personality is the rebirth of the Kemetic Conciousness. Historically, the African personality came into existence as a result of the destruction of the black civilization. In other words, the African personality came into existence because of the acceptance of the false notion of the Hebrews that there were no laws before Moses. The people of our beloved continent of KEMET became Africans when they accepted that there were no laws before Moses. Before there was a Moses, there was nothing like an African personality. There was no place in the world that is called Africa before there was a Moses. Therefore, when we think of the African personality, we must trace its origins to the false notion that there were no laws before Moses.

The false notion of the Hebrews that there were no laws before Moses has no historical validity because the Kemetic civilization that had dominated the consciousness of the world for more than six millennia before there was a Moses and this civilization had been based on the laws of MAAT, in the struggle against the forces of ISFET, and it had been in historical existence for many millennia before there was a Hebrew assumption. Therefore, the claim of the followers of Moses that there were no laws before Moses is invalid and has nothing to do with world history. In fact, there were laws that governed the ancient civilization of KEMET and those laws were called the “Admonitions of MAAT”.

Our ancient ancestors built their world historical civilization with the profound awareness of the eternal struggle between MAAT and ISFET. Thus, if the followers of Moses came into existence to proclaim that there were no laws before Moses they must be saying so from the point of view of ISFET. They cannot say that there were no laws of MAAT before Moses. What they must be saying in fact is that there were no established laws of ISFET before there was a Moses, as opposed to the laws of MAAT. What the followers of Moses were indeed saying is that there were no laws of ISFET that governed the world before there was a Moses. Again, what the followers of Moses appeared to mean is that it was Moses that made them aware of the possibility of fighting the laws of MAAT with the laws of ISFET.

If we are intelligent, we can easily understand that the laws of ISFET which were created by Moses and his followers were used to fight against the established laws of MAAT. But this fact was disguised and presented in such a manner that the people who would later be called the “Africans” offered no ideological resistance, clarification or opposition to the false notion that there were no laws before Moses. Consequently, these people who are contemporarily called Africans became captives of the forces of ISFET for they were ignorant of EKUMEKU. These people who would later manifest the African personality are a people that have no control of their past, no control of their history and no control of their identity or image of the world that they lived in. These Africans are a people that have lost control of what they think of themselves and are incapable of uniting against their enemies for they have lost the true knowledge of good and evil.

We hear quite often that the Africans had their rights taken away from them. What do we think is the reason for such a statement? What it means is that the people we call Africans have sold their birthright for no good reason at all. When the Africans sold their birthright they had their rights taken away from them and the evidence is their acceptance of the Hebrew assumption that there were no laws before Moses. As a result, the people who call themselves Africans became captives of the religions of ISFET and they were enslaved and colonized. That they had their rights taken away from them is a fact that can never be disputed by any right thinking human being.

The consequences of this historical fact that the people who call themselves Africans had their rights taken away from them are profoundly enormous. Unlike the People of KEMET, the people who call themselves Africans had their rights taken away for they are ignorant of EKUMEKU, for they look at the world through the eyes of the other, whose intention it is to destroy them.

What does it mean for any people to have their rights taken away from them? It is a fact of history that any people who were unfortunate to have their rights taken away from them cannot make any claim of being a free people. The planet that we all live in this contemporary time has serious ecological challenges caused by extreme materialism and pollution which have caused damaging climate change. The Africans having lost control of their rights are an endangered people who are incapable of uniting against their enemies. What must the Africans do to save themselves from the impending catastrophe? What the Africans must first and foremost do is to become aware that the African personality is an unwholesome brand used and abused by the contemporary world because of the imposed crisis of identity that came into existence as a consequence of their acceptance of the false notion of the Hebrew assumption that there were no laws before Moses which they invariably accepted. This African dilemma is the primary source of all the problems in our beloved continent of KEMET.

When we use the term “Africa”, we must understand that it refers to a particular people in a particular time in history. The term “Africa” can no longer be used to refer to the entire people of our beloved continent. The term “Africa” signifies or refers to a people who are ignorant of EKUMEKU, who came into history and was branded by another people to distinguish between themselves and the other. Before the branding of the people who call themselves Africans, there were never a people within our beloved continent who called themselves Africans. So, the term “African” had been an external imposition by invaders and foreigners alike who created the African brand to serve their own point of view. It was not the Africans that conceived of themselves as Africans.

Without any doubt, the “African” brand is the product of the European conception of themselves, others and the world at large. It was the Europeans who branded the African by giving the name “Africa” to the continent of KEMET. The name “Africa” has no meaning for there were never an historical people that called themselves Africans before the Europeans imposed the name on the people who now call themselves Africans. The first occurrence of the name “Africa” began with the Romans who called their (minor) conquered territory the "province of Africa". With the emergent of Europe six hundred years ago, the name “Africa” and its image gradually developed and were meant to represent the European “other”, in opposition to the self-image and self-interest of Europe’s self-definition. In other words, the branding of “Africa” was meant to represent the European “other"

which would never be as good as the European “self”. Let us go back to the origin of the name “Africa” as a small territory conquered by the Romans and named the “province of Africa”. Indeed, that Roman “province of Africa” was the Roman “other” that could never be as good as the Roman “self”. What the Europeans actually did was the expansion of the tiny Roman “province of Africa” to be referred as the so-called “continent of Africa”. The indigenous people of our beloved continent were never consulted in this matter.

Therefore, the modern European man in his attempt to define himself beyond his tribe and nationality as a continental personality created the “African” brand, a special branding of devaluation was attached to the “African” otherness as an essential point of distinction. The African “other” was never an identity for it was not a self-definition from the point of view of the people of our beloved continent; but instead, it is a cruel creation of the European mind. Thus, the African brand became a contributing cause, and it constantly needs a corrosive imagery, which is a weaving together of many strands of fantasies, justifications and contingencies. The enslavement of the “African” captives would later become a major strand that gave great impetus to the branding of the “Africa” that never was, for the enslaved Africans were not in the position to define themselves. The reduction of the African to a thing that can be bought and sold created the nexus of ideas upon which the corrosive image of the African was shaped and enhanced. We cannot expect people whose intentions were diametrically opposed to the self-interest of our people to tell the truth about us. At the center of the contemporary world is the image of the African as a brand personality, branded to make the people forget their true worth and identity. No doubt, the African brand was designed to divide the indigenous people of our beloved continent, to control them with false sense of identity and to delude them with falsehood and malicious propaganda.

Until the emergent self-definition of the People of KEMET must have been completed, the people who call themselves Africans are an endangered species that are unaware of the gathering storm of destruction being cooked up by the enemy. What the People of KEMET must do presently is to focus all their energy not on the African personality, but instead on the building up and the assertion of the new Kemetic Consciousness. We hear all the time from the Africans about the need for unity even as they are divided in different factions by the religions of ISFET. But can unity exist in a vacuum?

Blessings of Hotep!

In the spirit of MAAT, I am

YOUR HUMBLE SERVANT.