Sunday, August 20, 2017

Notes While Observing: The White Establishment's Plan for Profiting From Black Reparations

1.) "[Rebecca] Tuvel began writing the article ['In Defense of Transracialism'] after noticing the contrast between Caitlyn Jenner's successful coming out as a trans woman in April 2015 and the reception given that June to Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who identifies and had been passing as black. Jenner became one of Glamour magazine's Women of the Year and appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, while Dolezal lost her position as president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People chapter in Spokane, Washington, and became, in her view, unemployable. Tuvel was not interested in the details of the cases, but in their structure, and set about writing an argument in support of the position: 'Since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races.'" ~(Hypatia transracialism controversy; From Wikipedia)

In Defense of Transracialism by Rebecca Tuvel (April 25, 2017)


2.) "Sex between straight white men allows them to leverage whiteness and masculinity to authenticate their heterosexuality in the context of sex with men. By understanding their same-sex sexual practice as meaningless, accidental, or even necessary, straight white men can perform homosexual contact in heterosexual ways. Straight men – specifically white men – are having sex with other men to affirm just how straight they are, because to be straight and still be able to perform ‘gay sex’ – while always remaining uninterested – is the height of white masculinity. And they are the primary group doing this, because they can. Sometimes white people, and men in particular, bristle at the concept of ‘privilege,’ but in the context of [my] book, recognizing privilege isn’t about denying what is unique about individual straight white men; it’s about recognizing that straight white men have some unique cultural resources they can draw on to explain away and justify their presumably discordant sex practices [...] in which straight white men can have sex with one another and face no repercussions. White men have more room to push sexual boundaries without being immediately pathologized [due to their privileges]. ~Jane Ward, Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men by (July 2015)

Why can straight white men have sex with men without social consequences? by Zach Stafford (August 13, 2015)


3.) “Republicans might not agree with everything, but we have spirited discussions on these issues,” [Gregory T.] Angelo said, of the schisms between the party mainstream and its LGBT members—and between its LGBT members themselves. “It’s a movement that values plurality of thought, that values people of different opinions, that values people of all sexual orientations and different gender identities.” ~Scott Bixby, Alt-Right Gays to Log Cabin Republicans: You're No Conservatives (April 28, 2017)

16 Antigay Leaders Exposed as Gay or Bi by Erin Faith Wilson (May 29 2015)

Gay Political Scandals: 25 Politicians Who Have Faced Claims About Their Sexuality by Curtis M. Wong (Jun 29, 2012)

Pentagon continues LGBT pride celebration; conservatives say it’s a shame in Trump administration by Rowan Scarborough (June 11, 2017)


4.) It may be fashionable to play Indian now, but it was also trendy 125 years ago when people paid $5 apiece for falsified documents declaring them Native on the Dawes Rolls. These so-called five-dollar Indians paid government agents under the table in order to reap the benefits that came with having Indian blood. Mainly white men with an appetite for land, five-dollar Indians paid to register on the Dawes Rolls, earning fraudulent enrollment in tribes along with benefits inherited by generations to come. “These were opportunistic white men who wanted access to land or food rations,” said Gregory Smithers, associate professor of history at Virginia Commonwealth University. “These were people who were more than happy to exploit the Dawes Commission—and government agents, for $5, were willing to turn a blind eye to the graft and corruption.” The implications of such shady practices are enormous now, Smithers said. Five-dollar Indians passed their unearned benefits to heirs who still lay claim to tribal citizenship and associated privileges. “Now we have people who are white but who can trace their names back to the rolls used by tribal nations to ascertain who has rights as citizens,” he said. “That means we have white people who have the ability to vote at large; it means political rights; it means the potential to influence tribal policy on a whole range of issues; it means people have access to health care, education and employment. The implications are quite profound for people who got away with fraud.” ~Alysa Landry, Paying to Play Indian: The Dawes Rolls and the Legacy of $5 Indians (March 21, 2017)

"FAKE WHITE INDIANS - Dawes Rolls: History of $5 Dollar Indians" [EXCERPT] Hidden Colors 2 by Tariq Nasheed


5.) Ever since Colorado and Washington made the unprecedented move to legalize recreational pot last year, excitement and stories of unfettered success have billowed into the air. Colorado’s marijuana tax revenue far exceeded expectations, bringing a whopping $185 million to the state and tourists are lining up to taste the budding culture (pun intended). Several other states are now looking to follow suit and legalize. But the ramifications of this momentous shift are left unaddressed. When you flick on the TV to a segment about the flowering pot market in Colorado, you’ll find that the faces of the movement are primarily white and male. Meanwhile, many of the more than  210,000 people who were arrested for marijuana possession in Colorado between 1986 and 2010 according to a report from the Marijuana Arrest Research Project, remain behind bars. Thousands of black men and boys still sit in prisons for possession of the very plant that’s making those white guys on TV rich. ~April M. Short, Legal weed’s race problem: White men get rich, black men stay in prison (March 14, 2014)

The Special Interests Behind Marijuana Prohibition by Mark Thornton (October 14, 2016)

6.) [DOCUMENTARY] 13th by Ava DuVernay (October 7, 2016)

Muhammad Rasheed - Tuvel is 100% correct, of course, regarding the fundamentally identical structure of Dolezal and Jenner's self-identification transformations, therefore the shit-storm avalanche that met her controversial article wasn't moral/technical in nature, but political. The problem Tuvel dealt with was the fact that the heart of her article's topic exposed an aspect of the long-term plans of the LGBT well before they were prepared to have such a discussion, thus the special interest group's justified irritation. 

The societal taboos that the LGBT need to tear down are powerful, and entrenched with deep roots, and their admirably ever-patient efforts to massage the national psyche in order to groom us into finally accepting their end goal, will definitely take some time. Rushing socio-political progress will not help them indoctrinate us in the idea that gender is every bit as much a social construct as race is, because many of us have the mental hang-up of the whole gender-specific genitalia component to run defense. As long as that remains a mighty barrier, the LGBT will need more time to work on changing the psychological landscape. Right now their patient efforts to explain that "gender isn't real" functions as a brutal assault upon intellect itself, as they seemingly attempt to convince the populace that what's illogical and unreasonable is actually logical and reasonable:

It's obvious that the Dolezal's of the world will indeed be able to ride that very same train WHEN IT IS READY and not before. The delicacy of the operation the LGBT is trying to perform doesn't need clumsy and over-eager upstarts trying to capitalize on a legal-political precedent that has not yet been entered into the books. That's why they pounced on her, shaking her firmly by the scruff of the neck like a trans-mother fox  correcting a hyperactive adopted kit. Once it is finally complete, and the masses are able to accept what the LGBT is working towards, then the landscape will be primed for Black America to receive Reparations. 

Why is the one dependent upon the other? Well, we can see an analogous parallel within the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana became legal once corporate worked out their deal with the pro-prohibition bosses who were getting the lion's share of the black market profits; it was just a matter of the powers-that-be of the elitists working out among themselves acceptable terms in which they alone would get to split the wealth.

We live in a society in which the White Supremacist Ideology is the dominant philosophy of all western thought. White supremacy functions by the subjugation and exploitation of Black people and other people of color, which is the secret to its success... the white supremacist European powers enslaved their competition on the world stage, and used the free labor economic system to amass obscene amounts of wealth. That is the very heart of  Western Civilization itself, and any and everything it does comes back to this truth.  All decisions by the leadership classes of the business and political elite are designed to maintain their monopoly of wealth & power under the banner of white supremacy. 

So within a seemingly more enlightened and progressive age, when a slightly more informed populace demands the long-overdue end of traditional centuries old wrongs and abuses, we can expect Black Reparations to be paid out so that the elite may at least pretend to have finally addressed the most enduring sin of the United States of America. This will happen when the above mentioned conditions are met because that will only be achieved through the lens of the country's White Supremacist Ideology lifeblood. 

This means  we can realistically expect, when the final tally of payouts is complete, that whites will have devoured the lion's share of the total amount of Reparations intended for the African-American ethnic group. When for centuries, whites considered it a horrifying blight to have even but a single drop of "Black blood" running through one's veins, suddenly every Scott, Conor, & Becky will insist they are Black by way of an obscure ancestor. Far more damaging will be the numerous whites who will decide to self-identify as Black People just in time for the Reparations truck to roll up. The whole point of Reparations is to right the racist wrongs of the past, and BE the restorative bootstraps to enable Blacks to attain the equal playing field with whites that centuries of slavery and racist policies & practices sabotaged. Instead we will find, even though Blacks make up only 12% of the US population, that a much greater percentage of citizens will claim a gigantic chunk.

Call me cynical, but I really don't expect a huge percentage of the 12% actual Blacks to receive much of it either. Think about it. Of the pie chart of free government money labeled "welfare," only a fraction of that is allotted towards liberal social programs for the poor---the majority of that free gov money actually goes towards the business class. Despite this, the conservatives STILL complain about the little bit that the poor get, and this for no other reason than because it represents money that THEY aren't receiving. The same will be true of the Reparations checks that do somehow manage to get passed all of the scamming white people. 

The white establishment will find some way to legally disqualify a large number of Blacks from being eligible to claim their share of the Black Reparations payout (a felony on record, lives in the wrong place, lacks the correct ID, too many people in the registers with the same last name, etc.). In fact, I expect them to piggy-back off of the invented restrictions already in use to disqualify millions of Black Democrat ballots in the ongoing voter suppression scams. Why re-invent the wheel when they already use a perfectly serviceable cheating apparatus?

So Black Reparations will indeed be paid out, but only when the conditions are right so that whites can benefit from it themselves. Of course with the smell of money in the air, they will roughly push Blacks out of the way, to snatch even the crumbs from the brown hands that really needed them. After having stolen the rightful property of the African-American TWICE in this way -- once by holding them down in racist history, and again by taking the Reparations that were supposed to right the previous wrong -- we will find, as the whites walk away with pockets heavy with Black loot, that the books will be officially closed on the matter of Racism in the USA, and it will then be illegal to even bring the subject up. Especially in a future court case when a white attacks a Black in a crime that in the pre-Reparations era would have been called "racism."

Will that be all? Ah. Not quite. If you think the LGBT community will sit back and watch Blacks "receive" their Reparations (officially anyway) without demanding their own then you're crazy. They will, and they will get it in much better negotiated terms than the Blacks were able to get, probably even triple the amount. At that point the GOP will stop pretending that they are against homosexuality and magically become 'enlightened' to all the benefits of coming out, and whites will have thus twice doubled the wealth gap between them and the even more disenfranchised Black Peoples.

Perhaps it'll be at that point when the race war 'revolution' of legend will kick-off?  We'll see.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Dialogues with the White Conservative: Rivers of American Blood

Doug TenNapel - Goodbye Darwin statues:

"...for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." ~Darwin, The Descent of Man

Tom Owens - Poke that hornets nest!

Michael McCleary - It was a a relative of Darwin who started the Eugenics movement.

Das Fowler - I missed the time that Darwin committed an act of treason and started a war to protect slavery but I'm not up on history so... cool.

Michael McCleary - He merely stole the theory of evolution from Mendel, turned it into an elitist diatribe which would help inspire Hitler

Das Fowler - I didn't say he was perfect, and i don't doubt that we will even have cause to remove much of the praise for him in due course, but let's not pretend that's anything like being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in support of enslaving millions of human beings because idea>people apparently .

Doug TenNapel - Darwin caused more death than the history of slavery. He was the Stalin-Mao think tank.

Mike S. Miller - Clearly you're not up on history if you think the Civil war was to protect slavery. lol

Phil Weingart - @Mike S. Miller… state sovereignty was the principle, but slavery was the proximate cause. If you don't know that, you need to read a bit more history.

Mike S. Miller - I know the propaganda I learned in school. But the truth is not that.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Mike... Considering the obscene amount of massive wealth generated by slavery's free labor economy -- that saturated every aspect of society from Wall Street to the cotton fields -- it's pretty naive to believe the lie that the American Civil War wasn't chiefly about the economic system of slavery.

In what other circumstance, especially in the context of western civilization, would anyone leave that kind of wealth on the table and willingly walk away from it without a fight? Britain freed their slaves without a war, but here was a very practical reason why that happened: They paid off all the slave owners what their slaves were worth. After Lincoln paid the Washington DC slave owners to free their slaves, the rest of the US slave owners outright refused Lincoln's offer to buy them out, and opted to fight for the potential long-term greater profits promised to them if they kept slavery going. The rivers of blood spilled during the deadliest war in American history was all about greed. Does this surprise you? Western Civilization's core evils were all about enslaving and exploiting people, and that's what it owes it's economic successes to that enabled it to dominate the world.

The efforts to soften the harsh brutality of Western history to make it look kinder than it really is -- even while it continues to enslave, subjugate and exploit while pretending it's not -- is the very reason why we don't progress, and why the ideology of White Supremacy continues to hang over society like a foul stench.

Mike S. Miller - Lincoln did not offer to buy out the slaves. He might have floated the idea, but that was already a full year into the war, and never fully considered or offered to the Confederacy.

I am not trying to 'soften' the most brutal war in American history. 1 out of 10 men in this country died in that war. It's reasons for happening are important not to be simplified into 'slavery', because it wasn't simply about 'slavery'. It was about an unfair balance of costs the southern states bore through tariffs that had benefitted the northern states inordinately. YES, that is monetary. And yes, most of the labor in the south was slave driven. So? The tariffs weren't there to free the slaves. lol. The tariffs simply punished the south for producing the raw materials the north used to build their businesses. The north, then, was just as reliant on slave labor as the south was. They just didn't have to get their hands dirty.

Slavery was a ubiquitous institution in every nation and people group on the planet up until the 18th century. Trying to claim that somehow American slavery was the most egregious slavery ever to exist on planet earth is just pure America-hating propagandistic BS.

I'll probably shock you with this little factoid of history, but did you know that only 6% of the African slave trade ever made land in the USA? 94% of every slave bought from Africa was shipped to South, Central America, and the Caribbean Islands. I never.. EVER hear about how bad the slaves had it down there. Nah, I'm sure they were all treated as princes and princesses. lol

Slavery in America was nothing special. It was slavery. Every one of our ancestors in every corner of the globe is guilty of taking part in that institution.

Go cry 'White Supremacy' somewhere else. We're not buying it here.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Mike... So you begin your lengthy rant by not only admitting you were completely unaware of the historical fact that Lincoln did indeed offer to buy off the slave owners to their stark refusal, but you actually proclaim that it never happened, as if magically the facts will be nullified by the power of your typing alone. Curious.

You could've stopped right there since the rest of your credibility was enthusiastically flushed down the loo by your own hand. None of your other empty partisan talking points were any better, even while oddly labeled with the term "factoid." Your efforts to white-wash and soften history in favor of cleaning up the foul image of the white conservative only works inside of your little box, sir. Outside in the real world it is revealed as the lie it was created to be.

America's "peculiar" version of slavery was the only one in human history in which a specific demographic was delegated as chattel along the lines of racial phenotype traits, and the attempts to justify this concept are directly responsible for racism as we know it. The unique cruelties that were inflicted upon its victims, combined with the contradiction of flourishing within the "home of the free," are what led to the ongoing repudiation of the concept of slavery as a whole, despite being practiced all over the world for untold ages. The way YOU practiced it became an unacceptable horror the world had never known before.

Those among you who lack integrity couldn't wait to rewrite history to show your forebears in a kinder light, while you continue to subjugate and exploit to keep that slave revenue gravy-train flowing still.

Lindsey Crawford - @Muhammad Rasheed... ask the Irish what they think of your summation.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Lindsey, I already have. That train is NEVER late.  :)

Black people suffer the most racism in Ireland, report finds

Two years of the ‘Irish slaves’ myth: racism, reductionism and the tradition of diminishing the transatlantic slave trade

The Irish and the Atlantic slave trade

[BOOK REVIEW] ‘The Green and the Gray’ by David T. Gleeson

Ireland's forgotten mixed-race child abuse victims

Lindsey Crawford - Oh.. please forgive me. I didn't realize you were a conspiracy theorist. I'll leave you to your narrow-focused conclusions in peace.

Muhammad Rasheed - Not one of those links belongs to a "conspiracy." They are all scholarly works of mainstream academic historians.

Try harder, please.

Lindsey Crawford - Sure they are. Also, you can't Sean-Connery me, I'm a Scot.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hm. That's the second time in this thread that a white person proclaimed that something wasn't so, as if magically the facts will be nullified by the power of your typing alone.

This must be the mystical "white privilege" power at work. Fascinating.

Lindsey Crawford - So it doesn't count if you do it?

Muhammad Rasheed - You're doing it again.  :)

Muhammad Rasheed - Doubling down on foolishness doesn't make foolishness come true, Lindsey. Quit now.

Lindsey Crawford - Oh, I understand. Everything I do is white privilege because you say so.

Muhammad Rasheed - I said 'quit now.' You missed the lesson directly above.

Lindsey Crawford - So if I don't quit is that because I have white privilege or does this start to approach sexism? Should I rebuff your masculine demands to assert my feminine power here? I'm trying to understand the rules.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'll wait for Mike to return since you lack an argument. At least he pretended to frame his white supremacist nonsense in an interesting argument form.

You're just babbling in your commitment to your precious pet foolishness.

Muhammad Rasheed - (no offense, ma'am)

Lindsey Crawford - Mmhmm. Your pretend courtesy falls short. I'm not particularly insterested in a well-crafted debate. My object was to break up the monotony of your diatribes. I have no quarrel with other races, nor with other genders. My patience runs short with those who think they hold the power of heaven and earth in their ability to find internet articles backing up their ideas and collect the entirety of their vocabulary from the liberal agenda. You completely miss that on this side of slavery, much of us are on the same team. You and I are on the same team. I, unfortunately, am doing more to end slavery simply by not owning a person than you are by starting up skirmishes about nothing, pretending to be scholarly.

Lindsey Crawford - But I've got to go to work now. Mission accomplished.

Muhammad Rasheed - Lindsey Crawford wrote: "Mmhmm. Your pretend courtesy falls short."

Good. It was designed as sarcasm. You missed that lesson too, I fear.  :(:(

Lindsey Crawford wrote: "I'm not particularly insterested in a well-crafted debate."

This much is clear, since you lack the skills to do so. awww... Way to rise to the occasion though, Scotsman.

Lindsey Crawford wrote: "My patience runs short with those who think they hold the power of heaven and earth in their ability to find internet articles backing up their ideas..."

That's nice. My patience runs thin with you white supremacists spewing foolishness from your proudly ignorant filth holes. I guess that makes us even.

B'bye, ma'am.

Doug TenNapel - Would there have been a Civil War if there was no slavery? Absolutely not. It doesn't make the south lovers of racism and the north non-racist, it's just plainly clear it was about slavery.

Muhammad Rasheed - The North had more than their fair share of slave owners, while pretending they weren't. The largest slave owning family -- the DeWolfs -- were based in New England, and their plantations were in the Caribbean while they were lecturing the Southerners.

No one would give up all that money willingly.

Doug TenNapel - True. But the Civil War is a huge credit to American values. White people shot white family members in the face to end slavery. All I hear about is our racist past, nobody recognizes the blood spilled to end it. Because liberals demand we only cast the past as racist, they're the ones who usually say the civil war is not about slavery. They also deny that the abolitionist movement started in the church. I've read church writings on both sides of the slavery debate... the Christian Republicans won.

Muhammad Rasheed - The fact that all that blood was spilled on record for the deadliest war in US history based 100% on shear greed actually makes us look really bad as a nation to me, Doug. I have problems using that as a bragging point for American Values. That's pretty ugly, ESPECIALLY considering it was a Christian nation that did this. When the rich, young ruler asked the Christ what did he need to do in order to be saved, what was the second thing he was instructed to do? Either the Christian slave owners missed that lesson, or filling their wealth coffers was far more important to them than being saved in the sight of their Lord.

The Christian church fortunately did triumph in that battle, leading the charge all the way to the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It certainly makes me proud to be a believer (from anutha mutha. ;) )

Doug TenNapel - Greed is an evil that can have unforeseen consequences. It's also possible that without the sin of slavery, America couldn't have afforded to exist. The ends never justify the means and when we allow sin to stay among us it gets bloodier and bloodier to try to fix. America will always be scarred with some sort of racism, but I also see most people largely accepting people of other races. I often wish we didn't hate people of other religions or politics the way we don't hate other races.

Muhammad Rasheed - Seriously, the depicted scenario below is quite far-fetched, especially in light of sharecropping, how Reconstruction ended, and the former slave owners' ready exploitation of the 13th Amendment's "except for prisoners" loophole.

Dialogues with the White Conservative: "Why Do You Talk This Way?"

Muhammad Rasheed - So when white conservatives bring up 'Black abortions,' and 'Black-on-Black crime' on cue as their go-to response to the "Please stop killing us" Black protesters, what is their goal exactly? Is it as simple as a misdirection deception to get the Black protesters to stop talking about it? Or are they saying it's okay for whites to kill Blacks because there are Black abortions taking place and crime in Black lower income neighborhoods? I haven't yet figured out the point of why white conservatives respond the way that they do.

Please explain.

Doug TenNapel - It's hard to say "conservatives do this" when I'm the only conservative I'm aware of doing it today. From what I see, white conservatives condemn Charlotte right along with everyone else. And the band plays on.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't know any white conservatives who fail to bring up "Black abortions" and "Black-on-Black crime" in response to Blacks demanding that white-on-Black violence stops.

I'm interested in what does it mean when they perform this behavior.

Doug TenNapel - You mean besides demanding white on black violence must stop?!

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, that's a separate topic. I'm just probing into the mindset here.

Muhammad Rasheed - Searching for a basic understanding that has thus far eluded me.

Doug TenNapel - There doesn't have to be another reason. You only need to find a deeper motive if you first reject the premise. It actually is what it is. I can't explain the motives of others. I'd do the same thing if we were nationally mourning the death of a person with Downs Syndrome. I'd say, "do you all know that 90% of unborn babies w Downs are aborted? With those stats, i thought the national goal was to get rid of them." Then you'd have to try to find what my real agenda must be, because it just can't be that I mourn for 90% of Downs people being aborted.

Muhammad Rasheed - Why wouldn't the deeper motive be the other, or true, reason?

There's always a reason, Doug. Especially when the response is framed in a near word-by-word political talking point tract across class and state lines.

Doug TenNapel - We might be reading different sources, but I've got hundreds of conservatives in my FB feed and thousands on Twitter and I haven't seen a single one.

Muhammad Rasheed


Tim Sozio - @Muhammad Rasheed… the question is when are you going to demand black on black violence stop? after all it is well over 90% of crime that hurts and kills blacks -

Muhammad Rasheed
- It's not a real question, Tim, since there are dozens and dozens of Black activist groups dedicated to neutralizing the crime in lower-income Black neighborhoods. "Urban" center crime has been on a steady decline for several years, with a dramatic jump during the Obama era (of course I am not surprised that you are unaware of this). BLM is a group whose focus is specifically to demand police brutality in Black communities cease, so when you respond to them with this question that is quite outside of their specialized scope, it functions as either a confused logical fallacy at best, or a misdirection-deception technique at worst.

My question is: Which one of the two are you using today by the asking? Are you confused, or are you being sneaky?

Tell me.

Tim Sozio - neither… I am being realistic… on the streets at 13 and 21 in Philly and Florida - lived in the ghetto for 3 years - the barrio for 9 - been in jail - been in prison - ran with the biker 1%ers - been there done that - BLM is a racist hate group based on lies…

Muhammad Rasheed - So you think it's "a lie" that Black people want anti-Black, white supremacist cops to stop killing them? You believe that position is actually "realistic."

Why do you think that?

Tim Sozio - because I have been there and done that... it is not cops killing blacks... it is blacks killing blacks... you are a racist. facts count... you do not: [Article - NATIONALREVIEW.COM] "Police Aren’t Targeting and Killing Black Men"

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) You saying "I have been there and done that" doesn’t mean anything to me, Tim. You already know we disagree fundamentally on this item, so why would you say that as if it was pregnant with truth?

2.) You linked to a white identity politics conservative website, with a piece that deliberately ignores key facts in order to put together an intellectually dishonest "think piece."

So basically you're revealing to me that you accept the articles from all white conservative sites as gospel truth, that's why you think the way you do. Okay, that was deceptively simpler than I expected, but at least I know what you consider to be "realistic."

Muhammad Rasheed - By the way, white conservatives also use their own special working definition of "racist" which also doesn't mean anything to me. It's racist when your cops kill me and get away with it, but it's not racist that I complain about this practice. As you see there's no reason for me to take your 'racist' charge seriously.

Tim Sozio - BS… the numbers say you are a liar to the people and a racist -

Muhammad Rasheed - lol What numbers, Tim?

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, the "numbers" from your very white article?

Muhammad Rasheed - I can trump that. Watch...

Muhammad Rasheed - Here. Are you familiar with this?

[PDF] Federal Bureau of Investigation – Intelligence Assessment (17 Oct 2006) White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement

Muhammad Rasheed - This is the reason why the cops weren't in force in Charlottesville thy way they are during BLM peaceful protests. Because your cops were part of the pro-Nazi rally.

Naturally I should expect your white identity politics article to be kind of untruthful about its claims, yes?

Tim Sozio - BS… that was a political choice by the mayor - get a fact - and asshat I am only part white - you are a racist

Muhammad Rasheed - The FBI's report says that all law enforcement and the military have been strategically infiltrated by white supremacist groups for decades. That is significantly beyond the scope of a "mayor."

So you lied to me AND tried to bluff me. Interesting.

I'm just going to assume that "asshat I am only part white" comment was a direct reference to that ‘five-dollar indian’ scam your folk indulged in, to enable you to fraudulently get a cut of reparations intended for someone you victimized.

What else do you have? Preferably of more substance than what you have thus provided.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tell me why you believe me to be a racist. Let's start there.

Muhammad Rasheed - What makes ME a racist?

Muhammad Rasheed - Am I a racist by default because I self-identify with the Black American ethnic group?

Or am I a racist because I want white people to stop subjugating, exploiting, and terrorizing Black people?

Which one?

Doug TenNapel - This is why internet politics are effing stupid. In real life we three would be having a blast sharing a beer over a game of bowling. Now we're bickering over racist bullshit. I could weigh in and start making remarks but I feel like I'd be contributing the obvious, when what isn't obvious is I don't like seeing two good guys go after each other because of our culture. It's 6:30am and I already need a beer.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Bowling?" What's wrong with a cartoonist-sketch jam?  :(

Friday, August 18, 2017

Lion King: The Anatomically Correct Edition

Muhammad Rasheed - I checked out on the Lion King franchise once I discovered that it's the black-maned lion that is the healthiest and most virile. lol #DisneyBye

ME: "Stop lying to me!!! Stop brainwashing everybody with your Euro-beauty standards!"

[NatGeo Article] Female Lions Prefer Dark-Maned Males, Study Finds

Muhammad Rasheed - Just how they were acting during the study was a TRIP.

WHITE SCIENTISTS: "This... but this CAN'T be! Do it over! DO IT OVER, DAMN IT!!!"

Carmen Aquino - So.. You did know about Kimba the white lion right? I mean in the spectrum of color Disney went brown on this one. :D

Muhammad Rasheed - The fact that the scrawny, childless lion "on the low end of the gene pool" was given the black mane, while the powerful protagonists had the blondish-reddish-blondish-reddish mane, says everything I need to know.

I ain't Japanese. They have their own issues to work out. lol

Carmen Aquino - :D  I died with that comment

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Dialogue with a White Ally

Tony Steed - LMAO at people equating Black Lives Matter and Antifa to the KKK and White nationalist hate groups. Just how dumb are these Right Wing bigots?

Cristian Osorio - Dumb, and blind lol I got this one asshole that is mad that people are pointing out how there were nazi flags at the right wing protest event.... I'm like, dude, it's so fucking obvious, do you need glasses or do you have permanent brain damage? Lol

Tony Steed - Bahahahaha!

Muhammad Rasheed - They're doing it on purpose, and are confident that if they KEEP ON DOING IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE you will come around.

As usual.

Michael Walker - Hate is hate. And it comes in all colors and forms. I'm not saying BLM is a racist movement at all. But it seems like some black ppl act as if black ppl can't be racist at all. Not trying to pick a fight here so please don't take this the wrong way. Just the way I see things. Im just sick of all of it period. And this country and the sheeple in it. All people seemed to do is spread hate. Truly sickens me. all races are guilty of racism. I know this is gonna sound crazy but I totally support mix race couples. I feel like if it happens enough we will all just end up the same damn color and maybe finally get long.

Michael Walker - Have no clue what antifa is. Gonna have to Google that

Tony Steed - Antifa is based on Anti Fascism. The goal is to combat the Right Wing of Racism and Fascism supported by people like Trump and David Duke. The goal is to be a LOUD and primarily peaceful counter to the KKK and Racist Right Wingers like the Alt-Right. They sometimes get infiltrated by Outside agitators whose sole goal is to make AntiFa look bad to support the Idea of this so called "Violent Left" that doesn't exist. Well except for PETA. We can't be both Snow Flakes and Ultra Violent lol.

Michael Walker - Lol at snow flakes

Michael Walker - Ok Wikipedia had a much better explanation of it. Apparently it is not what it began as. But seems kinda like going backwards doesn't. Hating ppl who hate. It's still fucking hate.

Tony Steed - Naw. Beware of sources on antifa not from them themselves. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Michael... Do you disapprove that I hate the guy that plowed his car into a crowd of people that disapproved of his hate stance?

Do you think I should instead forgive him and give him the opportunity to kill someone else?

Michael Walker - That's a tough pill to swallow. But I think a praying man would say to forgive him and pray that God shows him the error of his ways. Wonder what Gandhi would think. My dad told me something a long time ago that has stuck. His ex wife screwed him bad. Left him in debt. Took his children to Canada and turned them against him. Took over 100k out of his retirement. I asked him doesn't that just urk you? Aren't you pissed at her? He said " if I hold a grudge, any ill will, or anger towards her, it doesn't hurt her, it only hurts me. So I just let it go. Not gonna change anything to hate her, just hurt me." I hate what that person did. I want Justice to be served to him. But for you or me to hate him won't hurt him. Only us. If you believe in the law of attraction like I do then I don't want any negative to be inside my head or heart. What was it that Yoda said. "Anger, fear, these are the path to the dark side." Something like that.

Muhammad Rasheed - That philosophy empowers your enemy, and encourages an entitled-privileged mindset that makes them even more evil. In fact, they teach that same evil to their kids so that the entire tribe ends up performing that evil against you for centuries to come. Case in point.

The only way to stop evil is to fight it until it stops. Prayer's purpose is to keep the believer focused on the task at hand.

Muhammad Rasheed - "A tough pill to swallow" is the idea that I should allow the oppressor to continue oppressing me without any resistance except empty "faith without works" prayers. That's what agents of my enemy sound like, and I reject that message.

Muhammad Rasheed - Going forward is to destroy the oppressor, and allow peace to reign. Going backward is to continue do nothing, and allow another 500 ys of White Supremacist Ideology to rape the earth so that the traditional Euro-ethnic oppressor may maintain his savage wealth/power monopoly.


Muhammad Rasheed - Here's perfect, high-level example right here: [VIDEO] Being an ally in Government

Muhammad Rasheed - The clip starkly demonstrates the powerful, moneyed, political class as it deliberately disenfranchises minorities out of pure selfishness and evil.

Anyone telling me that I should just forgive them and allow them to continue to oppress people are themselves filthy agents of the oppressor.

Michael Walker - At what point did I say allow them to continue? Either your missing my point or I'm just not doing a good job explaining myself. And I feel like with out meeting or getting to know me in the least little bit you've let a few words paint your whole Outlook and view of me. Like you've already put me on the side of your "oppressor". And I don't think I ever said anything about allowing it to happen or not defending yourself. From a few words I might could concur a few things about you as well. But I don't know you and have never met you. I haven't lived your life or experienced the things you have, no more than you have mine. So I'm not gonna do that. Why do that to me?

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Walker wrote: "That's a tough pill to swallow. But I think a praying man would say to forgive him and pray that God shows him the error of his ways. Wonder what Gandhi would think."

This comment from you is telling me to just allow the racists to continue to subjugate and abuse my people at will while I just forgive them and pray as my response.

How else am I to interpret that?

There's a racist radio talking head named Rod Dreher who believes that the whole problem of racism comes down to the 'racist resentments' of Blacks. He believes the enduring legacy of racism is the fault of Black people, the fault of the oppressed. To cure racism, all Blacks need to do is just forgive racist attacks -- just let them wash over us like water off a duck's back -- forgive & move on. The sooner Blacks get with that program, the sooner racism will be over. That's the demonic shit that Whites have transformed MLK's philosophy into. In other words, whites are allowed to abuse me violently at will, but I'M out of line when I use my Right to Bear Arms to defend myself from evil. Whites actually feel entitled to abuse me, since they literally get hopping mad at the idea that I would defend myself. I can't imagine what else you are even supposed to be saying to me, Michael, but so far, I find your whole message to be deeply offensive.

Michael Walker - Well I will apologize if I offended you. That was not at all my intent.

Muhammad Rasheed - What was your intent? What is the summary of your intended message to me, Michael?

Michael Walker - I almost died recently. I had a brain tumor removed. I was sick for a long time and almost died do to complications from the surgery. I went through an unbearable amount of pain. Coming out of the other side of that I have a much different view on life. My intent was not offend you. And I don't think you should roll over and take racism up the ass. Or forget that it ever happened. Sitting here thinking about it I think if I would have been there in that moment when that asshole plowed threw the crowd I don't know that I would have been standing there saying all right every body let's forgive this guy. I have a pretty bad temper that would have probably been lost in that moment. Idk man so many things became more important to after almost dieing. Holding hate anger or fear in my heart is something I cannot do anymore. And I don't think loading up all racist white people up and murdering them all would end racism. It's always gonna be around in one way shape or form. Again I will apologize if I offended you Muhammad.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Walker wrote: "And I don't think loading up all racist white people up and murdering them all would end racism."

This is how white racists think. They assume it's what Black activists want because this is how THEY function. For the life of them, they simply can't leave us the hell alone, and even though whites like you keep oddly interpreting it as "loading up all racist white people up and murdering them" I actually find myself needing to use my Right to Bear Arms to defend myself. That's all. That's all we've wanted since slavery ended was to be left alone so we could live our full FREEDOM, but there was far too much much money made from those centuries of using us as free labor, so the elite business class found they were too damn greedy to leave us alone. The poor whites resented the fact that without the slave institution, THEY were now the lowest rung on the socio-political ladder and it filled them with rage. These two items converged and led to centuries more of abuse, race riot massacres, disenfranchisement, and mass incarceration trafficking up into the present day.

This is the truth of what I'm actually dealing with, and from your posts above, I know that you lack the knowledge of Black history to really understand me truly. The bottom line is that you don't have a message for me, but I have one for you, Michael. Tell your pharaoh to let my people go. Thank you.

Michael Walker - Wow. So I am a white racist now. Thanks. Yeah man have a nice life with all your hatred.

Muhammad Rasheed - White racists always interpret my right to defend myself as a wholesale slaughter of all whites. lol You did it just now, even though I didn't say anything like that. If you don't think that simply defending my home from attack is the desire to indiscriminately slaughter everyone, why is that what you came away with? Try your best to put yourself in my shoes.

You don't think that's odd?

Muhammad Rasheed - So from my perspective, the fact that you really, instinctively think the idea of me defending myself from white aggression is somehow out of line,it means you are the one that hates. You REALLY hate me. When you said, "And I don't think you should roll over and take racism up the ass," it meant you were lying to me. You honestly can't see the difference between righteously defending myself from white aggression versus indiscriminate white genocide.

It means you hate Black people, and you really are a racist in your heart.

Muhammad Rasheed - [posted on Facebook] White Ally wrote: "And I don't think loading up all racist white people up and murdering them all would end racism."

This is how white racists think. They assume it's what Black activists want because this is how THEY function. For the life of them, they simply can't leave us the hell alone, and even though whites like you keep oddly interpreting it as "loading up all racist white people up and murdering them" I actually find myself needing to use my Right to Bear Arms to defend myself. That's all. That's all we've wanted since slavery ended was to be left alone so we could live our full FREEDOM, but there was far too much money made from those centuries of using us as free labor, so the elite business class found they were too damn greedy to leave us alone. The poor whites resented the fact that without the slave institution, THEY were now the lowest rung on the socio-political ladder and it filled them with rage. These two items converged and led to centuries more of abuse, race riot massacres, disenfranchisement, and mass incarceration trafficking up into the present day.

This is the truth of what I'm actually dealing with, and from your posts above, I know that you lack the knowledge of Black history to really understand me truly. The bottom line is that you don't have a message for me, but I have one for you, White Ally: Tell your pharaoh to let my people go. Thank you.

White Ally wrote: "Wow. So I am a white racist now. Thanks. Yeah man have a nice life with all your hatred."

Well, white racists always interpret my right to defend myself as a wholesale slaughter of all whites. lol You did it just now, even though I didn't say anything like that. If you don't think that simply defending my home from attack is the desire to indiscriminately slaughter everyone, why is that what you came away with? Try your best to put yourself in my shoes.

You don't think that's odd?

So from my perspective, the fact that you really, instinctively think the idea of me defending myself from white aggression is somehow out of line, it means you are the one that hates. You REALLY hate me. When you said, "And I don't think you should roll over and take racism up the ass," it meant you were lying to me. You honestly can't see the difference between righteously defending myself from white aggression versus indiscriminate white genocide.

It means you hate Black people, and you really are a racist in your heart.

Kamau Mkafele Mshale - I'd add, that if you could truly find all the racist whites and murder them..... why wouldn't that end white racism? I had never even thought of that. But wouldn't that actually end racism? At least anti black racism. There would be no racist, how is it not over then?

Muhammad Rasheed - You know that the whites that were left would feel the need to avenge their slaughtered loved ones and "become racists" to protect their tribes. Most of what we are already dealing with comes from their attempts to "preserve the white blood lines!" so why do you think killing a big chunk of them wouldn't trigger the so-called non-racists among them?

Come on...

Muhammad Rasheed - It's better to take the righteous stance of defense.

Kamau Mkafele Mshale - Definitely agree on that last part

Stephen Wilkinson - Racism is not white people,

Its white laws, its white products, its white medicines

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, there's a difference between "being white" versus "Whiteness."

The former is just someone who self-identifies with being a descendant of the ethnic tribes of Europe. There's 100% nothing wrong with that. The latter is the White Supremacist Ideology (and those who uphold it), which requires the subjugation and exploitation of Black bodies in order to function.

Kamau Mkafele Mshale - and white people make all that. many people participate in white supremacy even without trying. for white people its the defualt. at least in the west, unless they are workin against it.

Muhammad Rasheed - We're ALLLL working towards it unless we are actively working to free our minds from The Matrix. The White Supremacist Ideology is the dominant philosophy underlying all of Western thought. In it's 21st century manifestation, it has successfully separated the Black race into fragmented, powerless communities, who at their best, only aspire to be 'Token Blacks' in the white community's delegated support class. Even when we achieve the position of CEO in their companies, we are still just figureheads for 'Whiteness.' We have never been like this before, and this is clearly our weakest point... completely politically and economically excluded from participating in the mainstream as an self-sustaining, interconnected special interest group. 'Integration" was a poison to us.

Kamau Mkafele Mshale - i don't disagree

Muhammad Rasheed - We give the four figures represented in the meme above shit just because they are the most high-profile and extreme of the coonishness at the heart of what we've allowed, but we're ALLLL them if we aren't coming together to form the Black Nation.

Muhammad Rasheed - If you're the 'Token Black' in the white man's company, then you ARE Ben Carson and Condie Rice, because what the fuck else are you doing for your own tribe? If all your talents, skills & resources -- and the most productive hours of the day -- are being used to support your enemy's shit, then how are you NOT a Ben Carson?

Michael Walker - So now I'm a white ally. I can't put myself in your shoes no more that you can put yourself in mine. I tried to appoligize for offended you and told you that was not my intent. And I will apologize again. But painting me out to be some sort of racist white ally. I don't have a racist bone in my body. I met my best friend and brother Jermane Green when I was 8. I can remember going over to his house every weekend growing up. His grandmother was one of the nicest people I ever met. She treated just like all the other children in her house. She also carried a switch in her hand around us boys most of the time and wouldn't hesitate to get in my ass with it too if I got out of line. She taught me at a young age that God's love has no color or class or social status. It's just love. Again I'm sorry if anything I said offended you and if something I did say come across that way maybe it was out of ignorance. But it sure wasn't out of hate.

Kamau Mkafele Mshale - Michael Walker, i don't know you or the situation I will say tho, white people, like men to women, and straight to queer, are oppressive as a defualt setting. Because the society we live in rewards whiteness and degrades black individuals. So unless you are aware of how your participation looks and how your actions can be detrimental you will continue them. The reality is many black people with white friends have felt upset and at an impasse about things their white friend has done that crosses bounderies. up untill the last 8 years or so there was the ability to ignore it. Many of us just aren't doin that now.

If you really about what ever person of color you offended to the work to learn about whats wrong, how you might be complicit in it, what work you can do to change that and change the system over all.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Michael... If you're not an ally then what are you? :)

Muhammad Rasheed - Tell me why do you find it unacceptable that Blacks would have the right to defend themselves from white aggression. I think that's where our breakthrough is.

Michael Walker - Sure not a racist. I'd say I'm an all of all man

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Walker wrote: "She taught me at a young age that God's love has no color or class or social status."

What does that have to do with what Black people live in Western society? In scripture, God said that He doesn't Judge us based on race, class or status. He also instructed us as to how to deal with a savage oppressor, too. The latter is FAR MORE RELEVANT to this topic than whatever Green's grandma taught regarding God's Love. Here that message functions as a misdirection technique, since white people are by no means manifestations of God's Love. In fact, they have proven to represent the literal exact opposite of that.

Michael Walker - I think everyone has a right to defend themselves.

Muhammad Rasheed - Everyone? Even me?

What if I'm being attacked by whites because they disagree with how I flaunt my wealth and whatever other ignorant shit they say?

Michael Walker - You would be included in everyone yes

Muhammad Rasheed - That's good to know, Michael. Is this a recent breakthrough/revelation for you, or have you always felt that way?

Michael Walker - Always

Muhammad Rasheed - Awesome.

You pass.

(the paper test anyway)

Muhammad Rasheed - There's a practical, in-the-field exam coming up.

I suggest you hydrate...

Michael Walker - Going to bed soon so I may not immediately respond. But I do ask you stop painting me out to be some racist white ally. I guess that's me defending myself. I promise you I hate no one.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol What do you think "ally" means exactly? I only used that to protect your identity since you weren't in my FB Friend List. hahahaha

Michael Walker - I am glad you weren't able to tag me in that. But I will send you a friend request anyway. But yes please explain ally. To me it would seem you think I support Nazis. Like in the back of my mind I think you think I have a rebal flag hanging out the back of my pickup and regularly attend klan meetings. I hope I'm way off on that

Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't try to tag you in it. The point was to emphasize the message of the dialogue from a philosophical standpoint. The ID of the ally was irrelevant. Send me the Friend request. I may as well keep ya. Plus I see you are actually one of Thomas' peeps, so that's cool.

Muhammad Rasheed - ME: If you're not an ally then what are you? 
YOU: Sure not a racist. I'd say I'm an all of all man

You know that dick that plowed his dodge into that crowd also considers himself "a man." That's VERY broad, don't you think?

Muhammad Rasheed - By definition, a "white ally" is a white person who considers himself on my side. That's all.

Calm down, please.

Michael Walker - I thought the same of you. Any friend of Thomas and Tony is a friend of mine. But yes I guess that is broad. Christians believe in the whole forgiveness thing and I'd like to think of myself as being that way but a few months back we found out about something very disturbing. The mother of my children's mother married a petifile. They found all kinds of child pornography on his computer and cellphone and even correspondence between him and underage boys. They also found some strange photos of my children. Nothing nude or vulgar just odd pictures in manners no one could say they accidentally took a pic of. I don't think there is any way I could ever forgive that man. And thinking about it logically I don't recon I could forgive that man who plowed through all those ppl. But aren't Christians supposed to. I don't paint myself to be a Christian in no way but I do believe in God and I pray every day

Muhammad Rasheed - She married a what now?

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh.

Michael Walker - Petifile. Did I mispell that

Muhammad Rasheed - Wow. BIG time.

Muhammad Rasheed - I thought it was a new species or some shit. (GMO?)

Muhammad Rasheed - But I get it now. That's rough.

Michael Walker - Pedophile

Michael Walker - Lol sorry had to Google that shit. But if you put in petifile some funny stuff does come up lol

Muhammad Rasheed - ME: "What??? She married a chupacabra??? Oh no, Michael! Noooooooo!"

Michael Walker - Hahahahahaha

Muhammad Rasheed - The other thing is just as bad though.

Michael Walker - Yes my grammar is no good. I'm glad I'm good at math at least

Muhammad Rasheed - You kinda fucked up the definition of 'ally,' too, but no judgement.  ;)

Muhammad Rasheed - hahaha

Michael Walker - Yeah so the concept of forgiveness may be lost on me but I go back to what my dad said about holding a grudge. It doesn't hurt the other person for me to hate them it only hurts me. So what do you do. Like I would love to drive over to the guy's house and show him the other end of his junk but that would put me in jail and no help to my children. And holding on to the hatred for him will just eat away at me not him so what do you do

Muhammad Rasheed - There's a difference between forgiveness versus allowing evil to run about in the land unopposed. These are two completely different items.

One is what you provide when someone sincerely repents of wrong, and the other you beat down with your swords.

Michael Walker -

Michael Walker - I took it as me being allied with white supremacists. So yes I was off

Michael Walker - Hey buddy I got to catch some zzs. You have a good night sir. To be continued.......

Muhammad Rasheed - Have a good night.


Sunday, July 30, 2017

The True Fighter vs The Entertainer Hustler

Doo Steal your Ho Choi p4p #1 - [VIDEO] UFC 214: Dana White Event Recap

This fat fuck shouldn't be disrespecting the fighters like this

Triple H Aka Sara Jays older brother - He's giving fans what they want, they booed the fuck out of the Woodley vs Maia think about what that says to him, that they don't want to see Woodley fight

CosmicF - Fights are a business; if the fans don't like a fight, then it's not commercially viable. Go fight in a back alley if you just want to fight, but fighters like Tyron need to understand its not just about holding onto a belt.

Doo Steal your Ho Choi p4p #1 - @Triple H Aka Sara Jays older brother... Yeah because Maia shooting 20 takedowns not landing any and not engaging is so fun to watch

Captain Planet - Joe asked Woodley does he care if the fans boo he said he doesnt care what the fans think. You and Dana are obvious fans of the sport and that comment and performance he showed only shows he's not a fighter hes a hustler.

Muhammad Rasheed - Nonsense. A real fighter doesn't care what the fans think. Entertainer hustlers are the ones all about the whims of the fickle audience.

Captain Planet
- He's not a real fighter. He's a wrestler first, striker second. Why didn't he use his wrestling instincts to defend Maia and get control of him on the ground? And in terms of striking the only ones he's done are the combination of one twos and a straight hand now and again. To have the physique he has and pretend he is not ready willing and able to finish is nonsense.When he was in strikeforce, he was making sure the job was done. Now hes doing the least for keeping a title which is bullshit because his body says different.

He said hes better than GSP. GSP is a pure mixed martial artist, Woodley is just an opportunist and has a timid mentality for fighting. Gastelum who doesn't look the fittest has more spirit than Tyron and thats more impressive than physique to me.

Muhammad Rasheed - Woodley is definitely a real fighter, because he uses his brain first and goes for the best strategy to defeat the opponent by avoiding risks. He keeps himself in top physical condition so that he is always prepared to stick to his game-plan to the end, and he remains flexible and loose to respond to whatever new angles the opponent may try. He's a scientific, thinking technician who goes for the win at all costs (see: The Art of War by Sun Tzu), which makes him a true fighter.

Combat sportsman who allow what the crowd "wants to see" to override both fight strategy technique and their self-preservation instincts are entertainers, not true fighters. They're also stupid.

Muhammad Rasheed - Woodley's problem here is that he's contracted under a fight promoter whose leadership doesn't respect the techniques of the pure fighter, no more than the casual fans do. The big money generated by the fight entertainment events is hinged upon the ignorant emotions of the casual fans, not the appreciation of the true fighting art purists. Since Woodley doesn't care about the opinions of the former, but himself holds the sensibilities of the latter, his success within the company will probably suffer as shown by Dana White's public snubbing of the champ.

Captain Planet
- I get what your'e saying. End of the day it is entertainment because its broadcast on television and if the fans are the reason why hes getting paid, he should have an economical reason why he should care. By the way would you have rather seen Maia fight GSP or Woodley?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm a close combat True Fan purist and could go either way, with an edge towards Woodley because he's from my own ethnic group. Considering GSP's reputation for "lay-n-pray" and other safe & defensive approaches to many of his fights, I'm having problems seeing why Dana REALLY snubbed Woodley for this other match-up that doesn't promise to be much more casual fan friendly than the Woodley/Maia one.

MrOasis3165 - @M. Rasheed... it does Bisping has never been in a boring fight Woodley has been in loads. Almost all of GSPs fights are boring so facing GSP vs Woodley could be stylistically the most boring fight in the history of MMA.

Muhammad Rasheed - @MrOasis3164... As an actual fight fan, I would absolutely want to see how these very similar styles in Woodley/GSP would solve each others' puzzle. I genuinely hate it when "fighters" don't bring their training into the arena/ring/cage, and instead opt to swing wildly like a couple of uncouth goons who've never stepped foot into a gym before. I especially hate it when they are only encouraged to do this in order to appease the whims of an audience who actually think that the high level technical game of a sport they claim to be fans of is "boring." That level of stupidity is a bit much for me, but I'm not a promoter who has to take the foolishness seriously in order to eat, so...

btw, Woodley > GSP. F*ck that Frenchman. lol

Ajith Raja - why would he take the best mma bjj fighter who has been doing bjj his entire life to the ground?

Captain Planet - You would if you have wrestling credentials such as woodley's. He wrestles better than he strikes.

Muhammad Rasheed - Pretty much all of these UFC fighters wrestle better than they strike. MMA has a notoriously primitive stand-up game in the current era. That's the reason why some of the conversation around the Mayweather/McGregor event sounds the way it sounds, remember? And why Couture didn't even try to risk trading hands with James Toney.

MrOasis3164 - @M. Rasheed that's not true a lot of them strike better than they wrestle. Strikers definitely strike better than they wrestle.

Muhammad Rasheed - @MrOasis3164... Negative. They all keep their hands down, they all punch from their arms instead of pivoting off their heels, and very few turn their fists over during the throw... and this despite the footage of them stiffly practicing such things in the gym. lol Not to mention that they very rarely use the stand-up game's tried-n-true fight strategies to take advantage of natural gifts, opponent weaknesses, etc. (wth are their coaches supposed to be TEACHING???) Apparently it's far easier to grasp wrestling fundamentals judging from how they actually perform in the Octagon, or perhaps they simply don't respect the techniques of striking and believe how they threw punches on the 3rd grade playground is good enough when they get under the lights.

Lousson26954 - @M. Rasheed... I would love to speculate, but honestly, no one has access to that man's head until he chooses to share.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol So after billions of words in comments under each UFC video, suddenly we're too shy to speculate?

Friday, July 28, 2017

[DEBATE] W.D. Fard Muhammad vs Albert Einstein

W.D. Fard Muhammad vs Albert Einstein: Interview on 1440 AM WCNB Radio a Black-Owned Gospel Station in Detroit (1933)

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following interview is reprinted from a little book titled, “RELIGION IN BRIEF Station W.C.N.B., Detroit, Michigan 1933 ‘Wallace Fard Muhammad vs Albert Einstein’” that was obtained by Muhammad Speaks in early 1997. There was no author, no address and no copyright to obtain information on how to acquire additional copies or to obtain permission to reprint the material. There was not even a price listed on the book.

The only information, printed on the cover of this book, as to who was responsible for this wonderfully historic work was “@ 1996 Malik Publishing Inc.”

We wanted to share this information with our readers and say THANK YOU TO MALIK PUBLISHING INC. for this treasure you have shared with all of us.

Muhammad Speaks has no concrete proof that this work is authentic. We have researched tirelessly since receiving this book in early March 1997 to try to find out whether this interview actually did take place.

During our research we checked microfilm for the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press for a listing of W.C.N.B. radio station and found nothing. Historians informed us, however, that Black radio stations and/or programs were probably not listed in the Detroit News and Free Press in 1933.

We found during our research, that the only kinds of radio programs Black people were allowed to speak (not sing) on in Detroit in 1933 were religious ones. In confirming the historians’ guess, we found that in 1933, many buildings, including 3408 Hastings Street, (the building that Messenger Elijah Muhammad and the Saviour taught Islam in) that were occupied by Black people, at that time, were either not listed in the “City of Detroit Directory: or listed as “vacant”.

So we decided to try to find out whether or not Albert Einstein was in Detroit at any time in 1933. And if so, would he have made an appearance on a Black religious radio program.

We found that Einstein did visit Michigan in 1933, but according to a librarian in the History and Travels department of the Detroit Public Library “since his travel to Detroit may not have been significant enough, his stay may not have been recorded at all.”

We narrowed it down that the interview would have to had taken place sometime between January 1 and May 26, as we know that Messenger Elijah Muhammad taught us that The Savior left Detroit on May 26, 1933. And according to the Tuesday, January 10, 1933 edition of The New York Times, Albert Einstein was in Los Angeles, California on January 9, 1933 to visit the California Institute of Technology.

The book, Einstein in America (page 7) says, “Einstein was in Pasadena on January 30, 1933.” And that “He remained in Pasadena until the middle of March, 1933.”

In studying the life of Mr. Einstein, who deemed himself “sympathetic” to blacks, yes, he might have appeared on a black religious radio show.

Page 219 of the book Einstein in America reads Einstein was more frequently critical of various aspects of American society in his later years that he was in the period before 1945. He felt that the most offensive aspect of life in the United States was the unjust treatment of its black citizens. The “worst disease” in American society Einstein once wrote, is “the treatment of the Negro…”

The book also states that “In the late 1930′s Einstein…became friends of Marian Anderson (the Black woman singer of Negro Spirituals)” and that Anderson stayed with Einstein and his wife whenever she sang in Princeton.

While studying the language of Mr. Einstein, we found in the book The Drama of Albert Einstein, by Antonia Vallentine, on page 102: “The practicing Jews wanted to know whether he was really one of them, and as this was America, where matters of conscience are made public, a New York rabbi cabled to him in advance as though examining his credentials: “Do you believe in God?” Einstein cabled back this truthful and brief reply: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God…’”

The sister who passed this little book (“Wallace Fard Muhammad vs Albert Einstein”) on to Muhammad Speaks told us that the young man (whose name she did not remember) told her that it was taken from an old phonograph recording owned by a 90-year-old brother whose name we were not able to obtain.

Note: 1440 AM is still an “All Gospel” Radio Station. The current owners say that they brought the station from Bell Broadcasting (a Black-owned company). The owners of Bell Broadcasting say that they have no knowledge of the owners of W.C.N.B. in Detroit, in 1933.

On October 22, 2004 Brother James D. Muhammad of Greenbelt Maryland, questioned the authenticity of “The Interview” when he emailed Muhammad Speaks saying: “I question Mr. Muhammad identifying himself as the Son of Man. According to my understanding, he did not want to be known and told Elijah that he could not reveal his identity until he was gone. Why would he go through the trouble of telling his Caliphate to hide his identity all-the-while making it public on radio?”

Up until receiving the email from Brother James Muhammad, we (at Muhammad Speaks) had accepted the following interview as Truth. Out of all the responses we received concerning “The Interview” and even our own investigation of it’s authenticity, we had never considered the observation made by Brother James D. Muhammad. And we regard him as a hero for coming forth and sharing his view with us.

On October 31, 2004 MUHAMMAD SPEAKS received an email response from Brother R. Narkim Muhammad to our “update” regarding Brother James D. Muhammad’s observation.

The following are words of BROTHER R. NARKIM MUHAMMAD:

"I was reviewing the fact that you updated your “Savior VS Einstein” link to include ‘Falsehood’ in it. With all due respect to Bro. James D. Muhammad, I think the Muslims ought to check out the Book, ‘OUR SAVIOR HAS ARRIVED’, Chapter 9, opening paragraph…

“No civilized nation wants the so-called Negroes. Only Allah our Loving and Most Merciful God Who came in the person of Master Fard Muhammad in 1930, will accept us. It was not until 1933 that He Began Revealing His True Self to us as being the answer to the Prophecy of Jesus, the coming of the Son of Man, the Seeker of the Lost Sheep.”

Brother R. Narkim is an even greater hero for pointing out the answer to Brother James D. Muhammad’s observation. And we thank him for sharing this VERY IMPORTANT FACT FROM MESSENGER ELIJAH MUHAMMAD!!!! Thanks to Brother R. Narkim, we, at Muhammad Speaks, have returned to regard the following interview to be truth, because of the above evidence, but still, Muhammad Speaks would be grateful to anyone with more information as to the authenticity of this interview.

Actual Excerpt taken from station W.C.N.B. in Detroit, 1933. Religion in Brief. – Guest speakers tonight include Mr. Wallace Fard and world-renown mathematician, Mr. Albert Einstein.


(Announcer, Mr. Brandon): Gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to have you two here tonight as guest on Religion in Brief. It serves us here at station W.C.N.B., as well as the public, as a great opportunity to get a chance to probe in activities and lifestyles, philosophies and religious outlooks of you two gentlemen who are contributing much energy to certain sections of our nation. Mr. Einstein, to our scientific advancement in the Principles of Relativity; and Mr. Fard to the minority of our nation with what I’ve heard you say on many occasions in the past “Knowledge of Self”. Mr. Einstein, could you give our listeners a brief run down on yourself?

(MR. EINSTEIN): Yes, I’d be glad to. First, I’d like to say thank you Mr. Brandon for inviting me on your show tonight. I feel comfortable and it is a pleasure to be here. At this stage of my work, I am involved in certain experiments, which covers the scope of “Atomic enlightenment” as well as developments for this country, in case of nuclear warfare. Second, Mr. Brandon, they refer me as being a scientist, opening up new channels to the principles of relativity. Now I say, my work includes the science of matter and energy, and of the interaction between the two. Thus, I would rather be known to the world as a theoretical physicist in the mathematical view of relativity.

(Mr. Brandon): Very interesting. Mr. Fard, could you give the listeners a brief run down on yourself?

(W.F. MUHAMMAD): Salaam-Alaikum. For you, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Einstein and the listeners elsewhere and abroad. My Attribute is Fard Muhammad Ibn Alfonso. I extend my thanks first to Allah, God, for enabling me to be here tonight. Your offer, Mr. Brandon, is greatly appreciated by me, may Allah bless you. A little about myself: I am SON OF MAN, as it is written; Seeking to Save that which was Lost, and Restore again that which has gone astray.

(MR. BRANDON): Thank you, gentlemen. We’ll be right back in 60 seconds.

(MR. BRANDON): We’re back at station W.C.N.B. 1440 on your dial. Religion in Brief. Tonight our guest are Mr. Albert Einstein and Mr. Wallace, excuse me, Mr. Fard Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad what would you say your complete theory of religion and Islam is?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): For years now people have been asking me questions about my theory of religion, Truth, Islam, Allah, etc., etc…People who have attended my lectures throughout Illinois, Michigan and some in L.A…but you see, Mr. Brandon, 95% of the population have made religion and Truth something permanent, and is religion and Truth permanent? If it is, then it is continuous, and what is continuous is not Truth. That is the beauty of Truth: It must be discovered from moment to moment, not remembered. A remembered truth is a dead thing. Truth must be discovered from moment, because it is living. It is never the same; yet each time you discover it, it is the same. What is important is not to make a theory of Truth, not to say Truth is permanent in us and all the rest is an invention of the old who are frightened of both life and death. It is the Skunk Race, who are decaying, and their philosophies have no validity. The fact is that Truth is Life, and has no permanency. It cannot be taken for granted that you know life. Your amusement and your thinking process; that dull, repetitive process, is not life, nor Truth, neither religion.

(MR. BRANDON): Mr. Muhammad, I’m sure me, as well as our listeners have a lot of questions concerning that last statement you made. So let me begin with this: You said Truth is not permanent, nor is it continuous; then how can it be infinite, if it does not possess those two qualities?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Life is something to be discovered. You cannot discover it if you have not lost it; if you put aside the things that you have found. Do an experiment with what I am saying. Put aside your philosophies, your religion, your customs, you racial taboos, and all the rest of it; for they are not life. If you are caught in those things you will never discover life; and the function of education (knowledge) surely is to help you discover life all the time. Now permanent implies continuing in the same state, which is duration, and duration is the time during which something exists. Now once we…

(MR. EINSTEIN): Excuse me, Mr. Muhammad, may I cut you off for a second?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Sure, speak.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Before we move into a different topic, please let me ask you this: If certain individuals stored their religions, philosophies and spiritualism for another’s beliefs, because they might not feel sound, is that not a sin to those of a higher nature?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Those individuals who adopt theosophy, spiritualism, or hypnotism, may possess natures above some others who eschew their false beliefs, therefore, my contest is not with the individual, but with the false system. The Blackman here in the so-called wilderness, loves those people of stature. This is why I shall continue to labor and endure the strong currents of spirituality, the manifestations of which are health, purity, and self-immulation, must deepen human experience; until the beliefs of material existence are seen to be bold impositions; and sin, as well as disease, and death, give everlasting place to the scientific demonstration of Truth in mathematics, and to God, the Perfect Man, Allah.

(MR. BRANDON): We are told that the attainment of Wisdom and Power can only be acquired through study and knowledge.

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Of ourselves…

(MR. BRANDON): We have seen also that the same laws govern the whole Universe, and that if man can understand some of the laws governing, as Mr. Muhammad said Himself, the tiniest atom, he will have a clue to those which govern the solar system to which they belong; but it would be very difficult to believe that our sun was part of an atom in the cell of a solid body.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Some scientists now claim that the outer-shell is denser than the planets that swing through it. So you see, we must reserve ideas about solidity until we are a little more informed.

(MR. BRANDON): The point that I am trying to make is that through visualizing our vast giant solar system, we can better understand the intimate relation in which the stars stand to each other.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Don’t worry Mr. Brandon. The astrologers make careful calculations of the chemical and spiritual influences set up be the continual changing of the relative positions of the planets and luminaries (Sun and Moon) which is man. So let us resolve our arguments concerning that study please.

(MR. BRANDON): Mr. Einstein, there’s a word that you are an atheist. Let me ask you this: Do you believe in God?

(MR. EINSTEIN): I believe in Spinoza’s god?

(MR. BRANDON): You did say Spinoza’s God?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Yes he did, S.P.I.N.O.Z.A., but you see Mr. Einstein, and Mr. Brandon, Spinoza was a mere mortal, who was a philosopher in the 17th century. His full name was Baruch De Spinoza. he was a Dutch-Jewish philosopher who died at the age of 45 (1632-1677). His concept was that the Universe is formed of one substance, which is God, and the reality of mind and matter are the attributes, and that beings such as us are only changing shape in our composition. The concept (Spinozaism) is meritless. The whole theory collapses under its own weight of inaccuracy.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Excuse me Mr. Muhammad, but I am very…what you call cabalistic. I rely not on external experimentation, but on intellect, logic, and intuition. The logic of theory must stem from an inner coherence, not because external evidence makes it most logical over other theories.

(MR. BRANDON): Excuses me gentlemen, let me interrupt you two for a second. Mr. Einstein sir, tell me a little of Spinoza.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Though I cannot here expound the philosophy of Spinoza; I can speak briefly on its aspects: Spinoza attempted to lay the foundation for a new free society, ruled by law, yet also in accord with divine nature. On the one hand, Spinoza presented religion as a product of imagination; leading to piety. On the other hand, Spinoza held that reason and intuition led a man to a union with the source of all things, which is called the intellectual love of God. God, he said, is nature. God is whatever truly lives. In knowing Him we love Him and it is this knowledge of Him which makes man’s mind immortal.

(MR. MUHAMMAD): In those days, Mr. Einstein, that was a dangerous doctrine of immortality; and laid Spinoza open to misunderstanding and invectiveness.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Yet God Himself was ever present in all Spinoza’s writings; so much so, that one commentator did aptly called him a God intoxicated man.

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Your philosophy is just heritage. You are merely an abstraction of Spinoza, and indefinable expression of a creed, not universal reasoning and intuition as you state, and not a unity factor when understood completely. It is the illumination of the spiritual understanding which demonstrates the capacity of the soul, not of material senses, such revelation whatever constitutes and perpetuates harmony, enabling one to do good, but not evil (thus there is no unity in this intuition) you will…well, not you two, reach the perfect science of self when you are able to read the human mind. After this manner and discover the error you would destroy.

(MR. BRANDON): Mr. Muhammad, acquaintance with this science, as you say, will enable one to commune more largely with this spiritual understanding?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): I say it is a science, because it is! One second I referred to spirit as mind. and not like you two took it. To understand that mind is infinite, not bound by corporeality; not dependent on the ear and eye for sound or sight, nor upon the muscles and bones for locomotion, is a step forward. The mind science by which we discern man’s nature and existence. This true conception of the Blackman being God destroys the belief of spiritualism and Spinozaism at is very inception, for without the concession of immaterial personalities called spirits, Spiritualism has no more basis upon which to hold. Take the little Black Child for instance…

(MR. BRANDON): Excuse me Mr. Muhammad, we must take a break at this time. We’ll be back in sixty seconds.

(MR. BRANDON): We’re back and this is Religion in Brief. My name is Keith Brandon your host and tonight we are talking with Mr. Fard Muhammad, and Mr. Albert Einstein. Mr. Muhammad, while we were taking that break you commented about certain expressions of the child, or little children, so to speak, and their…

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Excuse me sir, I said the little Black Child.

(MR. BRANDON): Oh, I’m sorry. The little Black Child, and their awareness process which leads up to adulthood.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Excuse me Mr. Brandon, one second Mr. Muhammad, sir, what is the difference between awareness and sensitivity.

(MR. MUHAMMAD): I wonder if there is any difference. You know, when you ask a question, what is important is to find out for yourself the truth of the matter and not merely accept what someone else says. So let us find out together what it is to be aware. When you observe you reactions to what people say to you and how your mind is always evaluating, judging, comparing, and condensing. This is all part of awareness, which begins on the surface and then goes deeper and deeper, but for most of you, awareness stops at a certain point. But unalike the Blackman, who is surely without doubt the True God of the Universe, Whose proper name is Allah, has no point of end to their awareness. For their brain capacity is 7-1/2 ounces of pure…

(MR. BRANDON): Did you say their brain capacity is 7-1/2 ounces?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Yes, 7-1/2 ounces. The seven is ‘urim’, which is Light, the illumination of science, the only fit preparation for admission to the PRESENCE AND POWER OF THE MOST HIGH. The 1/2 is ‘Thummin’ (check you Bible–Exodus and Ezra) which is Extraordinary Perfection, which does not sleep; only alertness; and if you go into it still more deeply, you will find that there is no division between the person who is aware and the object of which he is aware. Now what does it mean to be sensitive? To be cognizant of color and form; to be considerate, good manners, listen attentively, without being bored, to everything that is said. So is there much difference between sensitivity and awareness? I don’t think so.

(MR. BRANDON): In dealing with facts that contradict some of the things you say, would you still say that the Colored man, the American Negro is truly God?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): The Colored man is your kind, *(pointing to Mr. Einstein), and the only contradiction I’ve heard in the last seconds was ‘American Negro’. Now the broadest facts array the most false lies against themselves; for they bring error from undercover. It requires courage to offer truth, courage such as my Brother, Jesus had. You see the higher Truth lifts her voice, the louder will error scream; until its inarticulate sound is forever silenced in oblivion.

(MR. EINSTEIN): You mentioned Jesus as your Brother, to my knowledge Jesus was a Jew. And if you view the Jesus’ achievement through materialistic eyes: seeing only an insignificant minority in possession of a little land and a few battalions; this will seem improbable. It will not seem improbable if a man discards the blinkers of prejudice and views the World not as a ‘thing’ but as an ‘Idea’! Then we may see that two-thirds of the civilized world is already governed by the ideas of the Jews. The ideas of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Spinoza, Marx, Freud. Will the World in the next two thousands years embrace the morality of the Torah, the social justice of the Prophets, the ethics of the Jewish Patriarchs? If so, then in the words of Isaiah; ‘There will be Peace! Peace to him that is far off, and Peace to him that is near’.

(MR. BRANDON): Yes Mr. Muhammad, what Mr. Einstein says I can understand. If Islam is your religion, how can it claim Jesus as one of its chief Prophets when Jesus was a Christian?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): I do not blame Mr. Einstein for his misled knowledge. For I am aware of the origin of this knowledge. Jesus was neither Christian nor Islamic. Christianity was not yet born when Jesus walked the earth, and Islam was not yet named by our Prophet at that time. Jesus taught Love, Freedom of error, Justice in terms of Equality. This making him the Messiah the people were talking about. This was then the political atmosphere into which he stepped, when he had chosen to reveal publicly that he was the Messiah. His destination was the Temple. His aim was to reform some of its practices. Not to destroy them, but reform them; for the Skunk Race still had another 1,914 years left to rule in their ghettoes and their darkness.

(MR. EINSTEIN): But the darkness was Light enough! If the Christians looked with derision upon the ridiculous ghetto Jews: The Jews looked with contempt upon those who jeered at them, namely Jesus! As a group they were still the most learned men in the East, Europe, excuse me….They were the only ethnic group in Europe having Universal Education. Into the ghetto they took with them their 3,500 years of cultural heritage, their Talmud, Old Testament, which illuminated their bleak physical existence with intellectual and religious comfort; and the veil of the Jewish women were a sign of the spiritual compensation given by their laws.

(MR. MUHAMMAD): I beg your pardon, Mr. Einstein, but I SPEAK THE TRUTH OF THE ORIGINAL MAN BEING GOD, hear Me when I say what is right! A veil, sir, is a cover -- it is a concealment, hiding hypocrisy! The Jewish women wore veils over their faces in token reverence and submission and in accordance with Pharisaic notions of the Judaic religion consisting mostly of rites and ceremonies. The motives and affections of a man were of little value; if he only appeared unto men to fast. The Great Nazarene, AS MEEK AS HE WAS MIGHTY, rebuked the hypocrite who offered long petitions for blessing upon material methods; but cloaked the crime latent in thought, which was ready to spring into action and hypocrisy. Allah’s Anointed One, Jesus. THE MARTYRDOM OF JESUS WAS THE CULMINATING SIN OF PHARISAISM. IT RENT THE VEIL OF THE TEMPLE. IT REVEALED THE FALSE FOUNDATION AND SUPERSTRUCTURE OF THE SUPERFICIAL RELIGION. TORE FROM BIGOTRY AND SUPERSTITION THEIR COVERING AND OPENED THE SEPULCHRE WITH DIVINE SCIENCE OF ALLAH.

(MR. BRANDON): Well that concludes our broadcast for today, and I would like to thank both Mr. Einstein, and Mr. Muhammad for joining us here tonight.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Before we go Mr. Brandon, do I have a second?

(MR. BRANDON): Yes, a second.

(MR. EINSTEIN): Ah, Mr. Muhammad, do you speak Arabic? Would you know how to say my name in Arabic, Mr. Muhammad?

(MR. MUHAMMAD): Yes, in Arabic you would say Yacub!

(MR. BRANDON): Thank you folks for listening to Religion in Brief on station W.C.N.B. I’m your host, Keith Brandon, and we’ll be back two Sunday’s from today. Until then, may the Lord bless you. Good Night.


AntonBatey - Irrefutable proof that the alleged "debate" between Albert Einstein and Wallace Fard/Ford never took place. [VIDEO] Proof the Fard/Einstein Debate is Fake

Muhammad Rasheed - So in order to prove that the debate never happened, you revealed that the two intellectuals involved were not only well read in the works of their contemporaries, but often quoted passages from the books they were fond of while in active discourse. Since that very common practice in fact describes every single learned intellectual ever, how does this prove the debate itself didn't happen again?

AntonBatey - Almost the entire "exchange" was plagiarized from Mary Eddy Baker and Jiddu Krishnamurti. MuhammadSpeaks even removed it from the website because for years they speculated that it was a fraud.

Muhammad Rasheed - I personally think it was irresponsible that MuhammadSpeaks took down the debate from their site for no other reason than because these two well-read scholars quoted from works than made up their ideologies (especially in Fard's case). It's like none of you have encountered an actual scholar before. This is actually embarrassing.

I find myself disappointed that the NOI didn't provide any pushback to this, but I suppose none of their heavy-hitters were made aware of it. Or perhaps they just didn't think the effort was worth it. Your findings, Anton, do not prove the debate didn't happen.

AntonBatey - No, what is actually embarrassing is that you do not seem to know what "plagiarism" is. Plagiarism is more than simply where you quote someone. It's where you take their words, thoughts and ideas and pass them off as your own. In this case specifically, it was literally word for word. I provided the original sources of where the text was literally taken word-for-word, sentence-for sentence. There is no defense to this, my good brother.

It's plagiarized and there aren't any serious top ranked NOI members that accept this as genuine. MuhammadSpeaks was the last straw and they eventually removed it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering this was a radio debate, it wasn't plagiarism since that would involve stealing others' writings and passing them off as their own. This was a verbal contest in which the two had limited time to express their opposing positions on their pet topics. As scholars, quoting from memorized passages that make up portions of their ideologies is 100% normal and expected in this case. It's interesting that you've decided to double-down on that point since, again, it doesn't prove that the debate didn't occur for the reasons stated above.

AntonBatey - no brother, it's a work of fiction, which I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Jiddu Krishnamurti's work which this was plagiarized came out in 1964, over 30 years after this alleged debate happened. Also, let's reason with each other, brother: the host, Einstein and Fard would have had to script out their questions, responses and elaborations in advance in order to have had the exact same questions, answers and elaborations as Mary Eddy Baker and Jiddu Krishnamurti provided (with the later not being available until three decades later). There is also simply no corroborative proof that such a debate took place. Nothing in all of Einstein's biographies place him in Detroit at this time either. There is not even evidence that the radio station existed, lol. Elijah Muhammad never spoke of such an interview either, and the text of the debate did not surface until 1996 from a publication with no author, no copyright, or no evidence of authentication. Further, the bit on Einstein talking about nuclear weapons was a dead giveaway. With all these reasons considered, it is conclusive that the debate is a work of fiction. Sorry. The plagiarized verbatim sources I provided is airtight proof.

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, now you're trying to bluff me. In the video clip it says Fard is quoting Krishnamurti from "various published interviews." So if the definitive published work of these collected interviews that you admit didn't come out until 1964, was from a figure that was known to have given interviews since at least the turn of the century, this is not an example of what you’re attempting to present it to be. The quotes could have easily come from published sources from before the 1964 publishing of the collected works. This much should be obvious.

Two, the "scripted out" hypothesis fails (and further demonstrates you've never actually met a scholar) because these are two intellectuals who are used to active debate, and active discourse with other highly-learned scholars. As mentioned above it is common practice for that particular demographic to quote favored passages from their dog-eared libraries, the content of which makes up the content of their ideologies. The 'plagiarism' charge is actually absurd in this specialized case, and far from the “airtight proof” you’d like it to be.

Three, your ‘atom bomb’ remark is also off the mark, since the theoretical implications of atom splitting were being debated heavily in physicist circles for at least a decade before Strassman and Hahn were able to definitively prove nuclear fission in their 1938 labs. That Einstein was able to mention the concept in 1933 was not unusual, since the topic had been discussed widely in the community. Einstein and his globe-wide contemporaries were the very people leading that discussion after-all. The secretive Manhattan Project was the multi-billion dollar effort to build the factories to actually make the working weapon itself, as all the talking and theorizing that needed to be done, had already been done in the decades before.

Four, the NOI publishers of the debate described in detail the unfruitful efforts to attain the needed primary source materials needed to definitively prove the debate occurred without a shadow of a doubt. The poor record keeping in the city when it came to the affairs of Blacks contributed heavily to this deficiency. This is not proof that the debate didn’t happen – since there’s nothing in the content of the discussion or in the little bit of information that we DO know that gives that impression – but only proof that there were no librarian/archivist technicians around to help save the materials needed for posterity. That’s the only thing about the matter we know for sure.

To conclude, from what we do have available, it is likely that the debate did occur as described. That the two intellectual combatants quoted from works that make up their learned opinions is not proof that the debate didn’t happen, in fact, it actually strengthens it. Please try harder in your debunking attempts.

AntonBatey - My good brother, nothing in the book Think on These Things implies that the interviews conducted were decades prior. The publication was from 1964 and nothing in the book, the editor’s notes or anything else implies that the interviews were from decades prior. If you assert that the interviews were prior to 1933, the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence. In this book, Mr. Krishnamurti discusses the United States’ embroilment with Russia (which did not begin until after World War II ended in 1945), as well as China’s dispute with the United States and the West, which did not occur until after Mao’s Revolution in 1949. Also, Hitler is mentioned in the past tense, who was in power from 1933-1945. Another part he talks about Americans and their televisions, something that was not standard in the United States until the 1950s. If you can show me specific evidence that the interviews were conducted prior to 1933, I'm all ears. Together with the publication date (1964) as well as the various historical and technological issues mentioned, your point is invalid. Another point that conclusively proves your position wrong is that Max Dimont was also plagiarized by the person who conjured up this fictitious “debate” from his publication from 1962 (“Jews, God and History”).

I’ll gladly teach you what plagiarism is, brother. According to Webster, the definition is “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source”. Another definition is “to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source”. Hence, if Einstein, Fard and the moderator all began to quote (verbatim) Mary Eddy Baker, Jiddu Krishnamurti and Max Dimont without giving credit to them, respectively, then they plagiarized by definition. If two scholars were debating and one began to quote word-for-word, sentence-by-sentence another scholar without giving them credit, their career would be severely hurt. The notion that all threeof them began to do that is bizarre and almost comical to picture. Think of that: the host would randomly ask the exact same question that Krishnamurti was asked, and the answer was the exact same as how Krishnamurti answered, letter-by-letter. It's difficult to believe you actually believe that. Moreover, the notion that Einstein, Fard and the host all “just to happened” to quote word-for-word the same three people is beyond the scope of reason, a point I think you well recognize. Without sounding arrogant, I believe you are displaying misology when claiming that I am not familiar with the concept of plagiarism. Any college professor would consider the taking of words and ideas (especially when the words are literally verbatim) without crediting the source plagiarism and their grade would result in an automatic “F” at least, and expulsion from the University at most, brother.

I am familiar with the history of the development of the atomic bomb and nuclear weapons, my dear brother. Please forward me literature which confirms your claim. Also, please forward me literature where Einstein specifically discusses nuclear weapons prior to 1933, as he supposedly casually said it in this alleged “debate”. Thanks, brother.

They cannot substantiate it because it did not happen. Over the years, I also “heard” from people that the person who wrote this debate wrote in as a college paper and later distributed it attempting to pass it off. Not a thing in this debate can be cross-referenced or independently substantiated. Not only is there no proof Einstein was in Detroit at the time, brother, but Elijah Muhammad never happened to mention that Fard debates the most renowned scientist in history, there is no records of this radio station, no record of this “Mr. Brandon” host, no record of a show called “Religion in Brief”, no evidence of it prior to 1996 (even through the height of their popularity in the 1960s and 1970s), and as I showed here, the contents are plagiarized, many from works not published until decades later.

Thus, to conclude, you will have to actually present evidence and will have to perform greater mental gymnastics to prove your point. Let’s have a recorded discussion in a Conference Call line on the matter that I will post. To repeat, no high ranking member of the Nation of Islam considers this to be authentic, with many of them either conceding it’s a fraud, with the last straw being MuhammadSpeaks. That speaks for itself.


Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) [From the Amazon book description] “The material contained in this volume was originally presented in the form of talks to students, teachers and parents in India, but its keen penetration and lucid simplicity will be deeply meaningful to thoughtful people everywhere, of all ages, and in every walk of life.” ~Think on These Things (Kindle Edition) by Jiddu Krishnamurti

As described, this book is a collection of speeches containing material that he had been preaching for years. The idea that he wouldn’t have repeated many of these same ideas before in the dozens and dozens of titles previously published is highly unlikely, since these figures often repeat themselves during such talks. Obviously the quotes used during the debate were from other earlier sources than this book you are currently fixated upon as the stiff-necked alpha & omega of your position.

2.) The fact that scholars have always quoted verbatim from memorized passages all the time – from Shakespeare to Hemingway, from the Old Testament to whatever field of study specific works that drive their body of work – it is quite feasible that both Fard and Einstein would do the same during this debate. We can certainly discuss whether they SHOULD have cited the materials as they were trying to dazzle one another with the force of their memories, but the radio talk show discussion was not as formal as the rules for citing works are in print, especially considering the obviously very limited time the two had to devote to the topic on the air. I disagree that their careers would be “severely hurt” by their decision not to do so, since there are no legal plagiarism rules in place, and such formal restrictions tend to be confined to both print work, as well as for people seeking to make a name for themselves, neither of which are relevant here.

3.) The “history of the development of the atomic bomb” isn’t what I was referring to, but the processes and procedures of documenting and making available the work in question that Albert Einstein would have had access to. You seem to be under the impression that Strassman and Hahn invented nuclear fission from start-to-finish in an overnight flash of brilliance. Naturally this is not the case. It is common practice to publish their findings regularly at key milestones along the journey in the prestigious scientific journals, to be reviewed by their scholarly peers in the community, thus Einstein was well aware of the work being conducted, of particular interest to him specifically as that was indeed his own field of study. Note that his mentioning it in passing to a lay radio audience while explaining who he was, is not at all the same as him “specifically discusses nuclear weapons” that you blew it up to be. Bear that in mind in the future while leveling the charge of “mental gymnastics” towards others if you please.

4.) I am aware that you would really, really, really like the radio show debate to have not occurred, based solely on your odd horse-blinder biases, but simply wishing for it not to have happened isn’t strong enough for our purposes I’m afraid, the MuhammadSpeaks cowardly retreat notwithstanding. It’s true that we unfortunately lack the primary source materials to definitively prove the event, but we do hold some measure of circumstantial materials to ponder. These, combined with the dialogue itself which holds up well both in historical context and content to convincingly be what it claims to be, is strong enough to at least keep the material on the shelves as a secondary reference work. I find your over-biased, and close-minded insistence that the debate was a fiction to be unreasonable. The lack of primary proof from a time period in which it is known that record keeping was poor is not definitive proof in the other direction either, Anton. At worst it simply means “We do not yet fully know until more evidence can come to light,” which is the recommended moderate conclusion from those with a modicum of scholarly know-how, yet I find your own stance sadly lacking in this moderation. Did a renegade NOI member kill your parents in front of you as a small child or something similar? If so, at least it will in some small measure explain your frankly weird crusade that leaps high over reason as if it will singe your skin.

5.) I do not have to present evidence on an issue in which all the evidence available is already explained in the debate introduction. lol To the contrary, what is actually needed is an objective use of logic and reason to analyze what is available to draw a reasonable conclusion… this I have provided, while your own anti-NOI biased position has not. Please improve.


AntonBatey - Brother, it's important for me to stress that I have changed in my opinions regarding the Nation of Islam. I regret some of my videos and comments towards The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the teachings in general. I will, and have been, vigorously defending the teachings, especially now in this political climate. Hence, I believe that you and I, although disagreeing on this specific issue, agree on major topics regarding politics, race and history. I'll still address what you said:

1. You’re factually wrong, and I think you realize it by dear brother. Krishnamurti’s collected works are available which would allow you to verify that he made those statements prior to 1933. The evidence, the publication date and the context of the book shows that the interviews were conducted around the time of publication (1964). If you cannot find the publication dating prior to 1933 then your point is moot. Furthermore, you ignored the plagiarism by Max Dimont and his book “Jews, God and History”, which was not published until 1962.

2. You’re stretching again brother, and I think you’re aware of it. So Einstein and Fard are going to have a debate where nearly all they do is quote verbatim the same two or three people? And the host is “in” on it too by asking the exact same question Krishnamurti was asked? Do you realize how outlandish and far-fetched this sounds? You also assert that this is normal for scholars, so provide some more examples of debates where the two contestants, along with the host literally copied word-for-word other scholars in a fashion similar to this. If I am on the radio and literally begin to quote someone else without giving proper citations, it would still constitute plagiarism, by definition. A recent example of when Michelle Obama’s speech was plagiarized by Melania Trump last year. You seem to concede this issue.

3. You didn’t cite a single actual reference to substantiate your claim. In this forged “debate”, it attributed Einstein to say “nuclear warfare”, brother.

4. Ah, ad hominems. I was waiting for them to come, as it’s usually the last sigh of an exhausted mind. I would have loved for this debate to have taken place between Fard and Einstein. I have always been interested in Wallace Fard and find him fascinating. I have much love and admiration for Wallace D. Fard, The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad and The Honorable Minister Farrakhan. I certainly regret some of the comments I made and videos I made 6-7 years ago. If Minister Farrakhan is not a man of God, nobody is, in my estimation. He has changed my life for the better, as well as many people I love, and he is a man I consider family and I love him, as well as The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. I have been defending him much lately from vicious attacks asserting that he was behind the assassination of Malcolm X, from people claiming he’s a “fake Muslim”, and other ridiculous charges. Again, my opinion the past few years had dramatically changed regarding the Nation of Islam. Specifically regarding this issue though, solid facts are solid facts. It was plagiarized, brother. That does NOT take away from the genius and good work that Master Wallace D. Fard provided and dead people he rose up. This is why nobody in the top ranks of the NOI are pushing this debate as authentic. It’s not.

5. Your statement that you “do not have to present evidence” is telling, and interesting, brother. A few days ago I was debating someone on here who “knows” that The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad ordered Malcolm X to be killed. When I asked him for evidence, he said that he “does not need evidence”. That’s where we reach an impasse. I have provided actual quotes, publications, cross-references showing that the contents are plagiarized, and even into the history of when this debate magically popped up in the mid-90s, with nobody ever (not even Elijah Muhammad, who would surely have mentioned that he debated the most known scientist in the world), and the lack of evidence that Einstein was even in Detroit at the time, or the very existence of the radio station in general. And you just ignore it and like clockwork, resorted to good ole’ ad hominem attacks.

I want to reiterate again: I love the Nation of Islam, will defend them especially in the age of President Trump, and would debate on your side on probably 90 percent of general issues. But on this topic, I agree with most top NOI members: that the debate is a plagiarized fraud and there is a preponderance of evidence. Unless you want to have a voice-to-voice debate on this issue, it’s done brother. I'd rather ally with you and attack white supremacy and defend the teaching of The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad.

As-salaam alaikum to you and your family, my good brother.

Muhammad Rasheed
- Stop. I'm an orthodox Muslim, Anton. I'm not a NOI member. You don't have to butter me up. I'm not arguing for "the honor of Fard" or whatever his acolytes do. I just think your position is sloppy, narrow-minded, and absolutely wrong.

Stand by for my extended response...

AntonBatey - M. Rasheed, take the "L" on this one, my good brother. I was nice enough to teach you what plagiarism is, offered sources and proved that the debate is plagiarized and gave you the chance to prove your claims with publications and actual evidence. You resorting to ad hominem attacks was a sign of your internal frustration and a signal that this is more of an emotional issue for you and not really a logical or rational one. You're still my brother.

As-salaam alaikum.

Muhammad Rasheed - Take an "L" just because you want me to? lol No.

Do you feel attacked, Anton? My playful speculations as to why you’ve taken on the position you have wasn’t an attack since I genuinely have no idea why, I could only attempt to probe in order to get you to reveal it. Since you admit to not holding any animosity towards the NOI, I now REALLY don’t know why you are so insistent upon one particular angle, with your mind closed against any other possible explanations. Frankly, I think you just enjoy using the term “ad hominem.” lol

1.) I am not factually wrong; we simply disagree on how we interpret your findings. I know far too many people who routinely quote verbatim passages from works they are impressed by for a variety of reasons, including high-degree university professors, to accept your narrow-minded stance as the definitive one. The bottom line is that you just need to get out more. Perhaps not out all the way back to 1933, lol, but out enough so that this casual verse-quoting as discourse concept that has you so ‘witch-hunty’ (is that a word…?) over your pet plagiarism charge, won’t seem as alien as it does to you. From my perspective, it’s actually weird to see you go on-and-on over it this way. But everyone’s experiences are different. Here I’m just asking you to expand your perspective a tad, because you are quite off the mark. This was not presented as a formal debate, and the two intellectual giants – under extreme time constraints as you see – were by no means under any obligation to rattle off the authors and titles of the many passages that had so impressed them to memorize. Your Spanish Inquisition-like insistence of shoehorning the two into a situation in which the charge of ‘plagiarism’ was a serious thing, was quite lacking in the scenario they actually found themselves in.

Regarding the work of Max Dimont, considering he started working on the sequel to Jews, God and History in 1955 – seven years before he published the first one! – and he STILL didn’t finish it when he died in the mid-90s, we can see he obviously was in the habit of carting around his notes and thoughts about his philosophies for a very long time. How much older were the notes for Jews, God and History before he finally published it in ’62? Consider also that he was widely traveled, an obvious brilliant man, who I believe would have been eager to trade concepts with the great Albert Einstein. Obviously he did so, made a great impression on the scientist, who left the encounter thinking that ‘Spinoza’s God’ was the one for him. Elementary.

2.) Please do stop making such comments as “I think you realize it,” “I think you’re aware of it,” etc., etc., since we are very much polar opposite on these points. You’re better served spending that energy jumping right into the comment you wish to make, or at the very least replace them with some other witty placeholder. Either of which I will accept with pleasure.

Every single talk show host in history asks their guests about the topic they wish to discuss, and brings those notes with them in the actual interview. It’s especially noticeable when the guest is a stand-up comedian, and the host’s prepackaged questions merely help feed straight-man lines to the entertainer to enable him/her to smoothly slide from bit-to-bit. How Keith Brandon performed during the show, in light of your findings, was by no mean unusual or untoward in that profession. Again I’m going to need you to get out more and learn more stuff so that relatively common place items such as this will not cause you to scream “The sky is falling!!” quite so often. Thanks, buddy.

The two combatants had a very limited amount of time to impress the audience with their philosophies, and impress the other with the force and scope of their ideological trainings. That they chose to do so by stringing together memorized passages, little different than a hiphop rap battle is neither unusual nor surprising. You may consider it the rough equivalent of the “elevator pitch.” In a very technical standpoint, it does function as plagiarism, but it isn’t as serious here as you are trying to make it. The actual plagiarism charge is only a serious thing in very specific circumstances. This one here wasn’t it, and more importantly it also doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen.

3.) Are you seriously suggesting I need to provide proof that scientists must publish their findings for scholarly peer review along the way of getting their theory officially endorsed and accepted? Is this a real point or are you just messing with me?

4.) I am indifferent to your lengthy, flowery praise for the NOI as I am not a member of the group as I explained above. I bear witness that there is no God but the One God of Abraham, and the unlettered Arab prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon him!) is His final messenger. I do admire Louis Farrakhan’s numerous speeches encouraging Black Empowerment, Economic Inclusion, and Self-Reliance in Black-owned business (and some other items) but I do not subscribe to their religious doctrine. Any apologies or regrets you harbor is solely between you and them.

5.) If you were indeed asking me to provide additional evidence to prove the debate was definitively real outside of what was described in the introduction, then not only can I not do so, but I find you trying to tear me down based on it to be intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were actually requesting? In any event, all the evidence was already on the table; what we have here is a battle of analysis in interpreting the findings. You want to label the whole thing a fiction and throw it out, while I want to keep it as a leaning-towards-possibly-authentic-until-more-facts-are-unearthed curio.

Wa Alaikum As Salaam.