Thursday, May 18, 2017

When Art and Corporate Meet



Ambrose Quintanilla IV - ABC is bringing back the sitcom Roseanne with the original cast (even though Dan is dead). So here's the question...Which classic sitcom would you want to see come back. And before you say Friends or Seinfeld, those two are off the table. Also, any show where any of the actors have passed on since the show ended are not eligible. No Three's Company, No Happy Days, No Everybody Loves Raymond...etc. Okay? Okay. GO!

Muhammad Rasheed - Not a single one. Only all original content moving forward. Create NEW classics.

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - Yeah, but they canceled Two Broke Girls (said sarcastically).

Muhammad Rasheed - Most television shows are allowed to doddle along well pass their natural lifespan until they become caricatures of themselves, and actually painful to watch (looking at you, Simpsons).

Its better to move forward and create all new content. I hate bringing shows back, reboots, and "prequel" trends. Just stop.

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - But seriously Muhammad, I miss the days when a Stand up would work his/her way up the ladder and land a Sitcom and let the next person do the same.

Muhammad Rasheed - Working his/her way up the ladder involved a whole lot of political schmoozing, and was rarely fair who got to have a show and who didn't. It certainly wasn't tied to who was the funniest. "Who plays the loaded game better" is the name of that tune.

We need better platforms than what the Hollywood cartel allows. I wish my people would open their eyes past their petty squabble tendencies and SEE what Tyler and Oprah are putting together for real...

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - The people who got shows worked hard and of course met the right people. Were they always the funniest? No. But they worked hard and networks worked to get them in shows. The networks don't do that anymore. That's why there are so many comics still touring and playing clubs when they should have been on or had their own shows. There were a lot of comics that got shows based on their talent and following that were a$$holes and didn't play the political game.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm sure some of them didn't get the deals they wanted because they refused to play the game and/or were asshole divas. Most of them didn't get the deals they wanted because the executives were the assholes, and didn't want to give their art a boost because it didn't fit THEIR corporate-political vision. Hence all the bs ethnic stereotypes that have infested the markets for the last 100 yrs. That's propaganda.

Muhammad Rasheed
- "I'm sorry, but you're just not Latin/Black enough. Could you be a little more buffoonish?"

"I'm sorry, but we just don't think America is ready for what you're selling."

Ambrose Quintanilla IV - Regardless. I miss sitcoms from Stand up comedians. I have a lot of friends that should have opportunities to create a show but they are just not there anymore in the amount they used to be. They do guest spots here or there but can't pitch for themselves like they used to.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes. That's why we need alternate platforms from the Hollywood cartel. Coming up with solutions to the problem is part of the hustle & grind. How WILL you stand out from the pack in a competitive market with fewer distribution opportunities?

Muhammad Rasheed - I remember a comic I used to follow back in the '90s named Mystro Clark. His shtick was very funny, and original, with a million directions it could go in, from a rock solid base of talent. He ended up getting a pilot made, but when the journeyman writers got a hold of him, they turned him into an empty "universal appeal" mess no different than most of what that stock television template churns out. I was extremely disappointed even back then, and wished there were alternate platforms to showcase a wide variety of stand-up art in its purest state.

When art meets corporatism, it often means the death of art.

A Goodly & Virtuous Atheist...?



Ravi P - What would Allah do? A Muslim and non Muslim both follow live virtuously. In addition, the atheist eats pork, worships idols. The Muslim prays five times a day. Both do everything else that is kosher like follow ten commandments, help the poor and needy etc.

What happens when they meet Allah?

Muhammad Rasheed
- atheism equals hellfire.

There is no 'virtuous' life without belief in the One God who made both you, and the rules of morality/ethics. God is the Author of what is righteous and what is not; without Him all of humankind would surely be lost.

Is not belief in Him the first in all Commandments and Pillars of Faith? Take heed.

Ravi P
- With a scientic mind, i cannot accept anything that is not subject to scientific inquiry. My opinion is God is just an imaginary being to counter the insecurities of man when he encounters something unknown to him or that he cannot control( lightning, rain, drought). Religion was also a good mechanism to bring some rules to society so that people dont kill each other.

I dont think there is a god frowning upon me for believing that he does not exist. If he realy wanted all of us to worship him, he would have made a frequent appearance showing he exists and guiding us in his direction.

In this century, Religion has no place. It has become a tool to scare people into getting manipulated. Atheist=going to hell? I fell out of my chair reading this. There is no hell, no heaven.

Muhammad Rasheed - With my own love for logic & reason, I cannot accept your claim of possessing a scientic mind [sic], since the limitations of the techniques, processes and procedures of science are by no means universally applicable to all aspects of our reality. An objective, rational being with an actual scientific mind would recognize that.

"I don't know" is an accepted and reasonable tool within the true scientist's repertoire when he finds himself at the end of his powers of understanding. Your insistence that your narrow-minded, uninformed opinion regarding matters of faith should be considered worthy of respect in any way, shape or form is quite ridiculous, and equally so is your amusing pretense to be a person of science.

A true scientific mind, Ravi, is both open, and far more humble than your performance here. There's a reason why the truly smart among us tend to use "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I DON'T know!" as their motto. Please take the hint.

Ravi P - See this is the result of being Brain washed thoroughly. I just stated my opinion. The issue i have with people like you is that you accuse what you exactly are. You are being a religious bully!

Muhammad Rasheed - I deliberately took on the Islamic belief system through willing self-study, Ravi. There is no brainwashing here on my part. I did find it interesting that your self-proclaimed scientific mind responded to my counter-response with a kneejerk emotional accusation instead of logic & reason.

Do you plan to ever level up, or will you continue to fill my post comments with this same poor quality of emotional responses while claiming that I'm 'bullying' you?

Ravi P - So having studied Islam on your own, do you just ignore the negative aspects of Islam?

People who are born into it might have no choice, but took a concious decision to join it? What did you find in Islam that was not there in christianity or Judaism? Dont mean to ask it as a sacastic comment. Just wondering why people join Islam when there are many negative aspects to it. Seems like a very rigid system to me and some of the verses seem to be conveniently revealed.

Muhammad Rasheed
- Well, a huge benefit to actually studying the material of a belief system, as opposed to being born into a cultural religious tradition, is that I actually gain the ability to discern between the tenets of the faith versus the numerous eclectic ethnic traditions that are falsely attributed to Islam. I haven't found any negative aspects to the religion itself, and the message of the One God is surprisingly simple. Bureaucratic elitists of course have a vested interest in making the material more complex than it actually is, but that's not the religion, and I have zero interest in equating Arabism with the religion of Allah.

The major item that Islam has over both Christianity and Judaism is the Qur'an itself. Many scholars and laypeople are used to thinking that the bible is the counterpart to the Qur'an, but that isn't true. Remember, Islam was kind enough to separate the believers' narrative of what happened to the prophets/patriarchs from the Divine Word of God in His Own Voice... these are two completely different texts. In Islam the former is called "hadith," and the latter is the Qur'an. The hadith isn't the work of Muhammad (pbuh), but is what the believers said about him after the fact. The hadith discuss Muhammad and the other companions of the prophet in the past tense as a narrative tale as remembered or passed down by them. Nearly the entire bible functions this way (if the Torah was supposed to be writ by Moses, then why does the voice of the books sound like other humans writing about the prophet after he was gone?) The Qur'an on the other hand is God talking directly to humankind in His Voice, either to His prophet, or to all of us. When tales of prophets past are told, it is God Himself doing the telling from His own point of view! The Qur'an is God point blank instructing humans as to His requirements, explaining who He is in relation to us as the created, and setting the record straight as to what the other"gods" worshipped by disbelievers actually are. To me this was an obvious incredibly powerful concept, and no other religion can possibly compete with that.

Many verses were absolutely "conveniently" revealed, and I would argue they all were. Considering the whole point to the Qur'an is to guide humans into the path of righteousness, particularly within a believing community. The religion was perfected as the people performed it with God providing instruction during the forming! "Conveniently revealed" is a mercy from Allah for those who are wise, Ravi, not an insult.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Return to the FRAY!




Rex May - Thanks for adding me. I've done a few blog posts on Jack Vance. Here's the latest.



John Justin Green - Excellent posts Rex May. Vance was certainly devoted to reality and not any idiology. And yes indeed we are at war with an enemy which is Alien to us. Dispationate analysis will always be called hate by the enemy and its allies. This is not even a war based on reason. It is nothing more than a basis animal struggle of primates dominating other primates. That is why the most absurd arguments are given ground as they are always backed by intimidation. The intimidation is the true determining factor. But here we can at least entertain our ideas without fear. But we even had a period here in this group when the Rashid our devout Muslim member was mirroring our posts on his own blog. This was intimidating because it made members private group statements public. This is not welcome. But feel free to venture to Rashid's blog and post if you want. I did do for a time.

Read my post about the effect of slavery on inherited biology. I have not pursued it but if you are interested I will likely continue it.

Muhammad Rasheed - The fact that you so carelessly misspelled "ideology" says everything that I needed to know about both your thought process and the quality of this post. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Re: "this is not welcome"

Just curb your itch for wanting to spew the n-word whenever you get frustrated, and control your batshit tendency to make up "we bred you negro bucks & wenches back when America was GREAT!" type comments, and you can relax.

Muhammad Rasheed - By the way, you aren't at war with an alien enemy. You're at war with the caricatured effigy you substituted for your demonized rival, in order to justify your exploitation system with a manufactured synthetic free conscience.

John Justin Green - I don't think you have the brains for discussion. Are you trying to come across unanchored, swimming in complex delusions?

I'm not sure if you are referring to my use of Alien or the use in Rex's blog. But Islam and western ccivilization are incompatable and the relationship is fairly called alien. And by western I mean the basis of it being the emancipation of the individual from being a subject. Surely you are not going to pretend Islam consists of a similar basis.

John Justin Green - Rashid you must not be paying attention. I've explained more than once now that the effect on biologic inheritance from slavery was done over much greater time than blacks have lived in this land. I'm not give western culture much of the credit for what has been done to you.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) It's difficult to take your "Islam and Western civilization are incompatible" comment seriously since Islam/Qur'an were part of the toolkit used to build the republic by the founding fathers. Your ignorance of this fact is just as telling as your anti-Islam xenophobic biases.

2.) Your explanations regarding the Black race, which come directly out of White Supremacist Ideology, mean just as much to me as specialized temptations of satan for sins I happen not to have a propensity for. lol Why do you sound so confused when I casually dismiss racist rhetoric as if it is nonsense?

Can you somehow believe it isn't nonsense? How is that?  ;)

John Justin Green - 1) Show me. I dont believe that. In fact I think they were pretty ignorant about Islam.

John Justin Green - 2) I have not yet explained anything so whatever you thing is from something you cal White Supremacy Ideology of which I have no clue about is coming not from me but from your own dark mind.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) I'm not surprised, since you oft demonstrate a tendency to project your own ignorance upon others. Why would the original architects of the republic escape your poo throwing?  Here:  The Founding Fathers and Islam

Muhammad Rasheed - 2.) Did I just discover arguments on the Internet? Was the computer invented yesterday? John, I am in constant battle in various forums, message boards, private messages, and social media threads. Some of you lot are better at masking the racism in your heart than others, but you all wear the same tells.

HINT: The wordier you are, O Jack Vance fan, the more likely you are to give away your true thoughts.  ;)

John Justin Green - I am trying to give away my thought you imbecile. Thanks for enlightening me. What I know is there was not an understanding of your doctrin. That was made clear by the reports about what was a revelation to the US leaders during the Barbary Pirate problem. Thier notes suggest they had no idea Islam was so vile.

Rex May - @Muhammad Rasheed…



John Justin Green - My suspicion was not negated by the historical document Muhammad Rasheed offered as it confirmed there were pro Islamic argument but does not detail the argument at all and offers no clue as to what depth of knowledge they had. So the logical speculation is they were not aware of how the totalitarian nature of Islam as that would have been obviously incompatible with the civil rules they were developing.

Muhammad Rasheed - I've detailed the argument for you on numerous occasions, and revealed that both you, and your Churchill, can see no further than your quasi-deformed olfactory appendage.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you think that the extremely well-read founding fathers were somehow LESS informed about Islam than you are? lol

How many countries did you create from scratch btw, John?

John Justin Green - Or they hoped all the safeguards would prevent the problem. But they did not expect this to last anyway.

John Justin Green - Yes I have more history to view. It is reasonable because the historical evidence of Marxism and communism was not available. And Islam has been doctoring the books for appearances. So I'm not at all confident they got you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Doctoring what books, John?

Rex May - I've been saying for years, islam has its good points and its bad points. Incompatibility with Western Culture and other cultures is one of the bad ones.



John Justin Green - Doctoring as in fixing. With flame. Redacting your main public consumption book. Controlling what is allowed to be written. We can only imagine what was erased from history. And of ccoursethe massing thought control effort Islam makes is effective. We can only imagine what was destroyed. And of course this manipulation is hoped to be kept behind the scenes. But truth is hard to hide to such a degree.

John Justin Green - Today we have seen many authors in hiding or killed. You do not allow any critical detailing if you can stop it. The poor founding fathers did not have a chance to know you IMO. Today information is much harder to control.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Rex... How is it incompatible with the West exactly? Give me three examples, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - @John... What proof do you have of this doctoring? Or is this a case of you believing what your team just made up in your propaganda? Do you have any proof?

Rex May - @Muhammad Rasheed… blsdphrmy laws, polygamy, criminalization of apostasy.

John Justin Green - Doctoring is a metaphor for trying to effect the message. So I am wondering why you would ask for proof after my answer. Do you deny writings are destroyed or that the purpose is for other than effecting perception? Maybe they burned the books just for a nice warm fire? Are you denying the consequence has been intimidation and murder for authors who produce works critical of Islam? Was the Koran not redacted? You are posting like your own life depends on being an all out propagandist if you can not not accept such an obvious thing.

John Justin Green - @Rex… it has always seemed that he just cant accept anything other than what he desires in dialog. I have never seen him acknowledge a point critical of Islam. His arguing has become absurd to avoid acknowledgement. I wish he would try acknowledging reasonable criticisms but instead he keeps fighting like the black knight missing all his limbs. But it could be worse as he doesn't insist the Earth is flat.

John Justin Green - Of course the nice thing about burning and murder is that ashes and dead men tell no tales. There seems to be a reliance on this deniability and the response of 'prove it' to be the common reliable shelter of the criminal.

John Justin Green - Noncupatory...

Muhammad Rasheed - Rex May wrote: "blsdphrmy laws, criminalization of apostasy"

Well, those two items have nothing to do with the religion, and are actually cultural taint from the legacy of European colonialism. So you have no argument against Islam itself.

Why Blasphemy Laws Are Actually Anti-Islamic

Muhammad Rasheed - Rex May wrote: "polygamy"

Allah allowed up to four wives under very specific circumstances, and even within those conditions, He still advised to only have one wife as the best practice for those who are righteous.

In other words, polygamy is actually discouraged in the faith itself by God's decree (4:2-5 "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one..."). So you have no argument against Islam on that score either.

What else do you have? I've been Muslim nearly all of my life, and I've had no problems living in the USA, except when some xenophobic bigots attacked my family. The issue was with them, you see, not with me.

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: "I have never seen him acknowledge a point critical of Islam."

As the posts above demonstrate, it's because everything you think about my religion is wrong. Wishing it wasn't so hasn't really helped your position. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: "So I am wondering why you would ask for proof after my answer."

'Proof' is a synonym for 'evidence.' This is the material that determines if an assertion is either a fact or a fiction, based on whether it is available or not, and it performs in this function thus and so:

If an assertion has proof to support it, then it is a fact. If an assertion does not have proof to support it, it is a fiction.

Criticisms cannot be considered reasonable without the evidence that supports their accusations. Please try harder. What books were supposed to have been burned?

John Justin Green - Evidence of burned books, redaction, intimidation? You really think denying there is evidence is not absurd? You are either pathologically stuck as a propagandist or delusional. This conversation is noncupatory.

Rex May - @Muhammad Rasheed… And polygamy is prohibited in the Book of Mormon, but the Mormons practiced it anyway. It's what Muslims actually do that counts, not what the Koran says.

Muhammad Rasheed - @John... Notice that I didn't deny evidence, I merely asked you to provide it. That means it's in YOUR court whether such material is denied or not.

Can you provide it? Yes or no?

Muhammad Rasheed - @Rex... You're being silly. If the religion doesn't condone a practice, but the people do it anyway, how is the practice rationally still being blamed on the religion? hahaha

Do you ever try to make sense? Obviously it's impossible for you to see pass your xenophobic bias.

Rex May - The fact that one piece of scripture contradicts a widespread practice within the religion does not mean that the religion 'doesn't condone' it. And you know that very well.



Rex May - This reminds me of communists who say that Marx didn't condone mass murder, therefore, communism as a movement can't be held responsible for mass murders.

John Justin Green - Prove? You mean post internet links to reports about Rushdie, or murdered cartoonists or regarding the edits in the Koran or on book burning? If you do not believe any of this occurs now with such common news I guess I can not satisfy you and more effort is pointless except for you to enjoy watching me dance for you. So once again, what you post is now absurd. noncopatory

John Justin Green - I am not thinking Rasheed knows at a deeper level he can not defend or nagate our points but has a pathologic psychology that demands he post some pretense of an effective counter. He always talks about sword play. In sword play the children must agree on wether the strike was effective. So a persistent child can get the others to agree he won just to shut him up. I believe this is his strategy. But it would be better to not thing of a battle but of an exchange of ideas.

John Justin Green - So I suspect if we just don't respond to his repetitive absurd denials he can feel it means we lost. Haha

John Justin Green - Funny that I am truly a Mormon. Polygamy is not condoned by the Church of Later Day Saints. The Mormons who do this are outside the church. It's not canon. And I am just on the books baptised as a child. I do not follow them. I am Orthodox Catholic. The original Christian church.

Rex May - I was referring to the original Mormons, who were indeed polygamists despite the prohibition in the Book of Mormon.

Rex May - It's not jusr Muslims. Many groups are inxompatible with the Wesr.



John Justin Green - I am not sure if polygamy was ever put in writing to be a acceptable practice or not. Just like Islam, Mormons created a system of government which was used when they were on their own in the West. I would not be surprised if polygamy was not written down as policy somewhere. Islam also has other references on governing and rules on life and it is pretty comprehensive. But if Rasheed says polygamy is not advised I believe it.

Rex May - @John Justin Green… Can you define Orthodox Catholic so I'll know jusr what you mean…

John Justin Green - Before the great split where the archdiocese in Rome left the church and morphed into the Roman Catholic Church. The original orthodox Church remians and is known commonly by the various archdiocese - Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox , Antiochian Orthodox..

Rex May - Got it. Thanks.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Rex... Please don't say "And you know that very well" since we think fundamentally differently about literally everything. Such comments are nonsensical coming from you lot.

That "one piece of scripture" is the divine Word of God, you ninny. If it contradicts a practice, then by default, that means the practice is falsely attributed to the religion.

Especially when the disbelieving hellbound, such as yourself, is the one performing the attribution.  :)

There is no priesthood in Islam. Attempts to claim such positions are by no means universally accepted by the body.

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "But if Rasheed says polygamy is not advised I believe it."

The quote I posted was from the Qur'an. It was God telling us this restriction; I didn't make it up.

Muhammad Rasheed – John wrote: “reports about Rushdie”

Rushdie wrote an old rumor into a novel and several Islamic communities got upset about it. A few leaders from the shia sect called for his death. I am not of the shia sect, so your reference means nothing to me at all as a Muslim. Should it? I posted the link where the guy explained to you that the 'blasphemy laws' aren't of Islam, did I not? So why do you prefer to hold onto falsehoods about my faith when it is well documented that what you believe about it is indeed just falsehood?

John wrote: “murdered cartoonists”

Those dumb cartoonists were murdered by militant extremists that they deliberately baited. Again what does that have to do with me, especially when I already posted the proof that 'blasphemy laws' aren't supported in Islam itself? What the extremist militants did was wrong; people have a right to be stupid as hell without getting slaughtered for it.

John wrote: “edits in the Koran/book burning”

What edits and burnings are you supposed to be referencing, John? Spill it out.

John Justin Green - Seems to me you are claiming there is a pure form of Islam which, if practiced would not be totalitarian and would be respectful of other belief without treating people outside Islam with claims or abuses. If that was true then it is not incompatible, but then the practical problem is that too many are following these totalitarian beliefs you would say are not Islam. These forms of Islam or false Islam if you will should be recognized refused the privileges we give based on religious freedoms. Id like you to explain the writings I have read tht are clearly incompatible and then you could try to show some biblical statement you think is similar. Let's see.

John Justin Green - Is it not a great problem that the totalitarians hide this from us when not able to dominate and pretend to be what you say is the true Muslim? And when the proper Muslims like yourself are neglecting this problem it makes the rest of us think you are conning us too.

John Justin Green - It reminds me of the mote in your eye Jesus mentioned.

John Justin Green - Lets all police ourselves

John Justin Green - Im am lost in a sea of persausive argument against Islam trying to find redaction but found so many other problems I am overwhelmed by www.thereligionofpeace.com and www.politicalislam.com and both are mountainous. The efforts to create more internal consistency and better perception by abrogation are not the only effort that suggests to me a learned man 250 years ago would have a good chance to not get Islam. Oddly I have trouble finding anything on this word 'redacted'. I wonder about my own memory. But it is clear there is a great deal of trouble finding the truth about Islam and both these sites and the constant arguments by so many now that we have this internet makes it clear. So I see no reason to assume the founding fathers got Islam.

John Justin Green - So with so much argument I have to retreat to actual Islam, to decide if it is compatible with the West. Rex said it is more about actions than words. The history of what hapens where Islam takes hold of minds is far from what you say or what is written. It is horrible. I believe this is for the same fundamental reason that there is such a contract between what a Marxist(socialist communist etc) says or writes and what actually occurs.

Muhammad Rasheed - The 'religionOfPeace' and 'politicalIslam' sites are anti-Islam propaganda sites, John. They aren't news sites. You've already demonstrated that you don't know enough about Islam to tell what's real or not, so why do you assume these known propagandists are telling you the truth?

John Justin Green - They sound reasonable to me. So does the pro Islam sites. You can't avoid bias either way. So stop using that as argument.

Muhammad Rasheed - Again, since you've already demonstrated that you don't know enough about Islam to discern between reality and propagandic falsehood, by what measure are you determining that these sites are reasonable?

John Justin Green - Stop. You attack mmessengersto avoid attending message. Even my message is missed. Any site may likely include misrepresentation on this subject and propaganda is a name your favorite sites may deserve. Im sure there are aspects of truth no matter the direction of bias. You are not proceeding along any discover by asking me to detail the way I find reason in reading sites. I will not even try to give such details. It is a rope a dope. Please stop this silly direction. As it is I find plenty of reason to reject Islam as a tolitarian system by its actual reality and this over rules writings even if there was no confusion about your books. Actions and words. We were arguing if my suspicion the Constitution was written with a lack of understanding of Islam was reasonable. So you are getting off on a side road which you enjoy that being making me the subject. Stop. I am boring.

John Justin Green - Just accept on this subject every source is considered propaganda by the opposing opinion holders. You need to read those site because if you do not know what the opposition argues then there is a good argument that you must not know your own position either.

Muhammad Rasheed - John, the Qur'an is the source text of Al-Islam. Allah instructed the believers to follow the way of Muhammad (peace be upon him) in how to walk out the tenets of the Qur'an. This is Al-Islam in totality: The Word of God, and the example of His prophet. If you are 100% ignorant of both of those items and what they actually teach, then by what measure do you use to determine whether any other source is reasonable or not?

John Justin Green - How would like to be bored by my repeatedly demanding you explain what makes you call a site propaganda. Think about it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Throughout this entire thread, a fool is continuously asking me to accept his proudly-uninformed ignorant opinion about my religion as truth.

That is the very definition of unreasonable.

John Justin Green - Bull shit! I never told you to accept anything I say as truth. Asshole. I dont even know for sure what the truth is. You are the most stuck up self inflated fantasist Ive come across.

John Justin Green - 100% ignorant is absurb but colorful. Ive read the Koran and get it the way I get it. What am I supposed to do ? Accept from you that I can't understand what I read and whateevr you say is how it is? Well Im listening. At least Im not calling you ignorant. But that is becasue I am the one here with respect for the other.

John Justin Green - Why don't you go make you noise at my biology idea I posted for you.

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "I don't even know for sure what the truth is."

Then what measure are you using to determine whether these sites you love are reasonable?

John Justin Green - Korans are all over the place. Many free apps on Google play. Ive owned it for years

John Justin Green - Now you add another fantasy about what I love? Fuck off.

John Justin Green - Truth and reason are not the same things

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "But that is because I am the one here with respect for the other."

You've been insulting my sacred belief system since I met you. You stated here that known enemy websites are "reasonable" in their slander, while admitting you are too ignorant of the topic to know whether that is true one way or another.

Is that respect?

John Justin Green - Read the sites for yourself and you will find them reasonable and muslins in arguments there. Reason is just a process to help navegate reality. It is not a garantee you manage it wihtout error

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm well acquainted with both of those sites, sir, since my Internet enemies cite both those AND that 'answeringIslam' drivel all the time.

Muhammad Rasheed - That is the nature of my questions to you.

John Justin Green - Respect is in regarding boudaries. If you consider my critism of Islam a boudary of your then I understand that would not be respectful to you. But in my mind how I treat you and more personally known boundaries has more improtance. We can not place ideas as boudaries or we can not have free exchange.

Muhammad Rasheed - What are you using to accept those sites at face value, but causes you to reject the message of the One God at face value?

Those site don't have a paradise nor a hell to put you in, but Allah certainly does.

Take heed.

John Justin Green - NO ! you make dangerous errors. I said those sites SOUND reasonable.

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "But in my mind how i treat you and more personally known boundaries has more improtance."

You are comparing my relationship to God with my relationship with a random disbeliever on Facebook?

>:(

John Justin Green - I am not at all convinced I can trust the Koran is from the Word. If it is, it has been horribly misunderstood.

Muhammad Rasheed - They don't SOUND reasonable to me at all, John, but I KNOW better. I KNOW the source materials that they slander, and can ACTUALLY discern truth from falsehood within my OWN religious texts because of that knowing.

>:(

John Justin Green - NO. You know I do not hold Islam in mind as you do. To me it is an idea that must be explored. To you my exploration of its critism is some evil act. Well, sorry but that is not the case in my perspective.

Muhammad Rasheed - Thus far you haven't demonstrated any such "exploration." You've uncritically swallowed – hook, line, and sinker – everything that known enemy sites have spewed based on whether it 'SOUNDED' good to you or not. Based on what metric? You don't even know.

>:(

John Justin Green - OK then if you KNOW you can pass on to me what is wrong there. I did not accept it as truth. I did find the arguments reasonable but hold acceptance as I know they can have false premises in the working o fit. So I would love for you to point out an example. I respond well to actual discussion like that. But if you simply call it propaganda it has no real impact.

John Justin Green - History, present day sattes cosilogy news, listening to Mulas, talking with Muslin associates. Lots of exploration. Name calling form you has not helped.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm calling it what it is. It's part of the Western Military Industrial Complex propaganda arm to drum up support for greed-fueled war.

John Justin Green - Titles name calling. You deserve your own critism the way you present ideas

Muhammad Rasheed - *shrug*

Muhammad Rasheed - We hold different ideologies in numerous arenas. I'm not likely to partner with you in very many of them. When you say such things, I generally take it as a mark of me being on the right track. lol

John Justin Green - Look, we can take one point at atime andjst get facts ironed out. That would be the best use of time. Declaring what names we call things and our current established opinions as if deriving them is obvious and needs no explanation is what gets us no where.

John Justin Green - OH right. I am of that same opinion. SO then what, should we just wait til we face each other in combat? To the victor goes the whatever. You dont really have that little hope for exchange or you would not be here.

Muhammad Rasheed - You would be better off ignoring both my hyperbole, and my labeling, and just jumping right into the points you wish to address. If I don't respond deep enough, then just ask me to clarify.

You know. Normal human discourse tools. :S

John Justin Green - I do try as you know. If you wnt discourse go explore my biology idea. I often think you just like to fight.

Muhammad Rasheed - Wasting a million posts to complain about my hyperbole and labels – neither of which I am likely to change – is the actual root cause of your annoyances.

John Justin Green - OK you slef gradizing fool, go count how many posts I have made that ignore your junk. then compare that to the number of posts with your junk and if my ignores outnumber your then Im the better man

John Justin Green - No more for tonight. 1;20 am. YOu are a terrible influence

John Justin Green - I want to ask this, are there any criticisms you acknowledge as reasonable regarding Islam itself as written? Or is there any site you would call fair that criticizes Islam? If not I have to say propaganda as a label you apply just means all critical thought regarding Islam. But maybe with a certain perspective Islam becomes perfect and no criticism is applicable. That would to be consistent with you so far.

John Justin Green - Now 1;30 am so serious this time

Muhammad Rasheed - There's two types of Islamic criticism (as far as we two are concerned)...

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Criticism from an informed well of knowledge based on the mind of one who has read the Qur'an from cover-to-cover, and thus can determine which hadith are false or not based on Allah's direct instruction to His prophet and to the believers. Such criticisms are real, and actually challenge me in my faith.

Muhammad Rasheed - 2.) Fake "criticisms" are from people who have no idea what Islam is actually about, but only think they do based on self-reinforced group discussions with people who think the misinformed way that they do.

Rex May - Seriously, it's not a question of what islam is about as it is of what self-identified Muslims THINK it's about. Right? Otherwise we wander off into 'no true Scotsman' territory.

John Justin Green - FUnny Rex. And if we don't like what we see about how they are going on about their argument Im sure they would bark at us that we can not have a meaningful opinion, not having any qualifications as Scotsmen ourselves. Actually the Scots have soem similarities in the stereotypes.

John Justin Green - Is this reasonable? "An Arabic word has only one root. The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no disagreement about this among Arabic or Islamic scholars. al-Silm (submission) does not mean the same thing as al-Salaam (peace), otherwise they would be the same word.

Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace can be brought about by forcing others into submission. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."

Muhammad Rasheed - The problem with this philosophy is that there are almost a billion Muslims in the world, and they all don't think the same way in all areas. This is normal for humans btw. lol

What you are asking me to do is accept what hostile White Christians think about Muslims, and accept wishy-washy Muslim opinions about Allah's instructions as if it WERE the religion. lol Neither of these are acceptable. The opinions of other Muslims only matter if they align to what Allah said. In your case, the opinions of hostile disbelievers that are notoriously biased against Islam, never count under ANY circumstance.

So you two might as well let that go.

Muhammad Rasheed - John, the "submission/surrender” aspect has nothing to do with war between humans, but everything to do with the believer's decision to willingly surrender his/her own will to that of Allah's Will. Obedience to the commands of Abraham's God is how you win at life, and only by surrendering your little will to His can you do that.

God commanded the believers to be at peace, and make not mischief in the land. If hostile people attack them or other innocents, then they are to fight the oppressor until conditions of peace are regained.

John Justin Green - Yes. And outside context of our subject, one could think you referred to Christian submission. So it comes down to policing bad behavior. Now with the problem of the barbaric statements and behaviors like the statement I quoted above by the so called Islamic scholar Ibrahim Sulaiman, what would you say is a reasonable way to deal with it? If we had a large number of Christians on a false path and organized to kill or subjugate others today what would we do. But we do not have such because it is not tolerated. Should we not react to all this abuse of Islam by so called Muslims in a firm manner as we would to ourselves? What is the reason such barbarism is put up with by people like yourself?

Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote: "...one could think you referred to Christian submission."

In or out of context, we ARE talking about Islam, which is an Abrahamic religion. The Divine Author of the Qur'an is the same One God that Jesus Christ (pbuh) prayed to.

You don't like something Sulaiman said, because you hold views that cause you to interpret what he said in some crazy way. You now propose to "do something about it." This sounds like the typical barbarity that I've come to expect from your demographic, John. Do you want to enslave him because you didn't like what he said? Teach 'em a lesson with a King Leopold style hand chopping?

According to the FBI, a "large number of Christians are on a false path and organized to kill/subjugate others today." They've known about it since 2006 when they released the report. Apparently no one feels it is a big deal and no one wants to do anything about it and it is very much tolerated. Only brown-skinned Muslims are the "bad guys" to the US Gov, their allies, and you.

What barbarism do you believe that I'm putting up with? Sulaiman's comment? lol Does that mean that you believe that only White Christian males are allowed the right of free speech? Any other demographics’ speech must be controlled?

Friday, May 12, 2017

Notes While Observing: The 1972 Gary Convention


1.) The National Black Political Convention was hosted by Mayor Richard Hatcher in Gary, Indiana, on 10-12 March 1972. Black delegates from all fifty states were there, as well as many notable Black personalities. Bravely, this happened while the community still mourned the assassinations of major African-American leadership in the previous decade, and while the US government’s diabolical COINTELPRO program continued its infiltration and dismantling of pro-Black groups like the Black Panther Party. The natural next step after decades of hard-fought progressive struggle for civil/human rights, the convention was formed with the spirit of: “The society we seek cannot come unless Black people organize to advance its coming.”   The goal was to come together as an independent Black political movement, with a focused Black Agenda checklist, and the use of that living instrument by which the Black community would endorse candidates, and hold them accountable.

"Getting the right to vote in 1965 was the beginning of a process, but the convention in Gary solidified the sense of focus.” ~Jesse Jackson

2.) “It’s Nation Time! It's Nation Time!” was the enthusiastically shouted motto of the event, notable since representatives of every Black tribe sub-group were there, from every ideology, religion, political preference, and more.

“The who’s who of Black America from Civil Rights/Human Rights leaders, elected officials, Nationalists/Pan Africanists, business leaders, artists and entertainers gathered in Gary — Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Congressman Walter Fauntroy, Queen Mother Audley Moore, Owusu Sadaukai, Betty Shabazz, Coretta Scott King, Congressman John Conyers, Dick Gregory, Richard Roundtree, Isaac Hayes, Nikki Giovanni … but most importantly thousands of ordinary people from all walks of life from Black America. It was a magnificent sight to behold all these beautiful Black people together in one place charting a path for the future of Africans in America and the world.”

3.) “The Convention was not without its tensions and controversies. Despite the appeals to unity, divisions remained. One of the deepest was between Black groups that chose to participate in the convention and those that did not. One prominent no-show was The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which avoided the meeting because whites were not allowed to participate.”

Resolutions within the Agenda calling for 'community control of education' and less emphasis on bussing to achieve 'integration' and another that essentially demanded that Israel revert to a secular state called Palestine with the right of return of displaced Palestinians sent shock waves through the ranks of the more moderate organizations and leaders, many of whom quickly rushed to the mainstream media to disavow these positions in the document. There was also disagreement over whether to call for a 'Black Political Party' as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Mayor Hatcher had hinted during speeches to the Convention. Nationalists/Pan Africanists were fully supportive of the idea of a Black Party, but most elected officials were fiercely resistant. The compromise was the creation of a National Black Political Assembly as the continuations mechanism for the Convention with Baraka, Hatcher and Diggs continuing in their roles as the tripartite leadership.”

4.) The continuous (and predictable) heated squabbling between the Black Tribes threatened to prematurely disband the convention before the goals were met, as several delegations started making moves to abandon the event. Poet-activist Amiri Baraka stepped up and INSISTED everyone stay until they were able to collect all the data needed to put together the Black Agenda.

"You know, it was a very striking kind of thing. When we got there, Hatcher had put these red, black and green flags on all the sign posts down there. It was very exciting. It was one of the most exciting things I’ve ever been to in my life. There were Black delegates there from all 50 states, just like it was a convention for the Democratic or Republican party.” ~Amiri Baraka

Miraculously, that’s exactly what happened! Feeding upon Baraka’s determined energy, and his bold & courageous leadership, the convention held until all objectives were met. On 06 May 1972, the main deliverable from the Gary Convention was published: The National Black Political Agenda

The Black American ethnic group's people are not a hive-minded entity. They are composed of several tribes, each with their own ideologies, goals, drives, loves, etc. Together they are the Black Nation, united by their common ancestry back to Africa, and their shared experiences in the New World starting from the events of the Atlantic Slave Trade. What makes them different is enough to keep them in a state of petty squabbles, but what they have in common has been enough to unite them against a common foe for their survival, and even thriving. The National Black Political Agenda was the tool created to help in that continued survival, with the hope for progressing beyond "the struggle," and finally into the victory of the promised Glory of full, economically included citizens of these United States of America.

After the Agenda was published, some of the critics of the pro-Black focus of the Gary Convention said they were going to 'tweak' the hard-won document and make it even better. Of course they started trying to shove every other special interest group's issues into it immediately in a clear act of sabotage... which would only water down the entire point of The National BLACK! Political Agenda, keeping the African-American people in a state of disenfranchisement. Increasing contentions eventually caused them to abandon the Agenda altogether, and the Congressional Black Caucus decided that it would substitute it's dubious "Black Bill of Rights" document in it's place.

5.) “Controversies notwithstanding, thousands of Black people left Gary energized and committed to making electoral politics a more relevant/meaningful exercise to promote Black interests. And, by the end of the decade the number of Black elected officials had quadrupled.”

Be that as it may, the entire point of the Gary Convention and its one deliverable, The National Black Political Agenda, was neutralized, and thus the reason why the Black politician figure has been seen as an impotent sellout by the Black community ever since. If the proliferation of Black politicians in the wake of the Gary Convention -- whether Democrat or Republican -- haven't pushed a Black Agenda for us by us, then what WERE they doing for the African-American community in the last 40 years?

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

The Black Dem Agenda News


You can never be TOO careful...

"Ya, Allah...!"
Q: Is rabbit halal?

A. Alfaritsi - It is. If I recall correctly, meat of all herbivore animals (those that don’t have fangs) are halal. Some say that if you eat too much rabbit meat people become gluttons, so you might want to watch out for that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who said that "people become gluttons"? The shamelessly superstitious? lol I'm not likely to consider "guidance" from that lot.

A. Alfaritsi - Were you the one asking the question? Just take that part as a joke.

M. Rasheed - What if the one asking the question DOESN'T take it as a joke, and it becomes a thing through some weird twist of fate, creating a whole new sect of Islamism... The Radicalized Bunny Mullahs of the Islamic State (RBMIS)?!


M. Rasheed -   O_O

You should take it back.

A. Alfaritsi - I’ll delete my answer then.

M. Rasheed - *whew!* We dodged THAT bullet...

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Notes While Observing: The Doodles


As a cartoonist at heart, I tend to build up stacks of doodles while doing pretty much anything.  No stray piece of paper is safe.  Consequently there are quite a bit of informal cartoons laying around, illustrating whatever is on my mind at any given time, in various stages of roughness.  I've decided to start posting my favorites of these otherwise unseen/unpublished drawings within this blog.  I'll be adding to it relatively regularly so make sure you peek back here often to check out the new additions.

For some of them, I'm interested in seeing if you'll be able to match the drawing to whatever the subject I was studying/reading/watching at the time.  Perhaps I'll give out a prize at some point.  :)

Thanks for watching, all.

Very respectfully,

M. Rasheed, Cartoonist-Publisher
Graphic Novel Serialist
Tales of Sinanju: The Destroyer & Monsters 101
Second Sight Graphix
www.mrasheed.com

______________________________________





                                     

2017 is the 100 yr anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution.  I wonder if Putin plans to proclaim himself Tsar or something?


In D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation film, the black-faced White actors that were hamming it up displaying their version of how buffoonish Black people are supposed to be, used many moves that are currently associated with the comedy style of the most popular member of the Three Stooges, Jerome "Curly Howard" Horwitz. 

Based on the historical track record of a race-based hierarchical caste system like the USA, which of the following  scenarios do you think is most likely true?

1.)    As a very impressionable 12 year old when The Birth of a Nation was released in 1915, and since the film proved to be SUCH a phenomenon, Curly took on the buffoonery displayed by the over-enthusiastic racist actors for himself, and practiced them until it became his signature style. 



2.)    The comedy style tropes we associate with Curly were always how goofy and athletic White vaudeville comedians made fun of Black people at the turn of the century. The popularity of the Three Stooges allowed the actual origins of Curly's style to be swallowed up in history since anyone doing it during the golden age of television would then be seen as performing a 2nd rate Curly impression.



        3.)    Curly’s style came from White vaudeville comedians, who in turn appropriated it from an unsung Black comedian, whose name is now lost to history.


Thursday, April 20, 2017

Biblically Black

Detail of a Roman fresco depicting the prophet Abraham (pbuh), painted about 320 A.D.


Alaba Samuel Oluwadamilarey - What makes the majority believe that there was never a time when a Black person was among angels or prophets in the scriptures?

Muhammad Rasheed - This is no less than a deliberate self-indoctrination designed to blind them from their wrongs. Pretending that Black people had no meaningful contributions to the human story (in which they are the white-knighted protagonist) is only a flimsy effort to clear their conscious from all the anti-Black enslaving, subjugation and exploiting they have grown addicted to.

Studies have confirmed that this centuries long practice has measurably deadened them from feeling empathy towards Black people: Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.011

Alan Spinks - There were original ancestors of Homo Sapiens who lived about 40,000 years ago, a male and a female, ancestors of the the whole human race today. We can call them Adam and Eve. They lived somewhere in central Africa and they were Black. Let not that be forgotten. Some scientists might dispute the 40,000 years ago. I am open to hear of more accurate estimates, But there were common ancestors, and they were Black.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Adam & Eve were on earth much further back than 40,000 yrs, since the oldest discovered human fossil to date ('homo sapiens idaltu') is estimated to be 160,000 yrs old.

2.) Alan, there's zero point of bringing this info up here, since the specific form of discrimination we're currently experiencing, based on racial phenotypes, is only as old as the 500 yr old reign of European Imperialism that birthed it. Back then Whites did not feel the same way about Black people as they do today, as can be attested by the glowing praise your precious Classical Greek personalities heaped upon the African race in the hoarded piles of your oddly-selective celebrated writings of theirs. The pre-Western History ancient Blacks civilized Europe, remember? (see: "prisca theologia")

Alan Spinks
- Thank you for your comment. I agree there is much racial discrimination, particularly in USA. In New Zealand it is much less. I am from UK, might I say, white european, but I have friends from Zimbabwe, also living here. They are blacker than most people I have known. They are beautiful people. The father is a computer engineer, and the mother has a PhD in Psychology. Their children are beautiful too. There are some of us who would like to rid the world of the anti black bias, but we can only do what we can in the area where we live. The way we integrate with the family referred to above is an example of what can be done. I say, if ever you want to know what Adam and Eve looked like, then look at them.

I think there would be many prophets in the past who would be considered “black” today, but I am not aware of the problem ever appearing in the bible for example. I am aware of a recent find of a clay tablet from the area of ancient Ninevah, dated older than 5,000BC, which lists the names of the kings of the Chaldeans starting from Seth followed by the same names which are given in the bible as generations of Adam. It is felt that the Jews in captivity in Babylon about 700BC found the list of names and incorporated them in Genesis as descendents of Adam. Those names are not as old as 160,000BC, but they are a lot older than 4,004BC.

I accept your estimate of 160,000 years for the age of our common ancestors, Adam and Eve. I am not an expert in that field. I think the age has been pushed back continuously as new evidence comes to light, much of it in recent years.

I appreciate your contact. I think social media is great.

Muhammad Rasheed
- The secret to ridding the world of the anti-Black racism isn't 'Integration' theory, since that just serves to delegate Blacks to a lower support class inside of a fundamentally White Supremacist societal model. Treating Blacks "nice" while they are still discouraged from achieving the freedom of economic inclusion as a group is still racism. Anti-Black racism is destroyed by the immediate ceasing to exploit them, and simply getting out of their way, both of which will take a complete breakdown and rebuilding of how the Western world thinks in general.

All the Hebrew prophets were Black people. Abraham's father Terah was of a powerful aristocratic tribe in Kush. lol The Solomonic era children of Israel were indistinguishable from the Eastern Black African. All of this is documented. "The Jews" didn't become synonymous with the White people that are the face of the group today until well after the Mongol horde dismantled the converted Eastern European tribes of Khazaria.

It's possible that the captive children of Israel found those Ninevah names and incorporated them as you say, but I think it is much more likely that they were already carrying such a list with them in their oral traditions passed down. They are a People of the Book after-all.

lol It's not my opinion that Adam & Eve were 160,000 yrs old. The available data only authorizes me to admit that the oldest homo sapien fossils found to date were estimated at 160,000 yrs. Only the orthodox academic community would so foolishly proclaim those fossils as the 'first humans' for no other reason than because that's the oldest ones they FOUND. lol That's not what 'science' sounds like at all, but it's certainly what an agenda-driven doctrine pretending to be science sounds like.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

BATTLE MODE: Splitting Your Religion into Sects


Q: Shias tell me the Qur'an is incomplete, while Sunnis say it’s the final Word of God. Whom shall I believe?

Muhammad Rasheed - The shia sect was created from the manipulative machinations of a guy named Abdallah ibn Saba, who was known to have sown dissension among the early Sahabah. The toxic ideological seeds he planted by claiming Ali was really a divine figure, obviously contradicting the basic message of Allah, are what eventually evolved into the shia doctrine as we know it today.

There is no reason to ever take the shia's opinions about the Qur'an seriously since their entire group functions as a disruptive spy agency created by some of the long-time enemies of Islam.

Q: Why do Shias believe the Qur'an is incomplete?

Muhammad Rasheed - The shia are convinced, through the centuries old deceits of a diabolical figure known as Abdallah ibn Saba, that Ali is somehow a deity figure of some kind, and that the early Muslims should have established a royal caliphate dynasty of him and his male descendants.

They are SO convinced of this foolishness, that they blaspheme and say that Allah Himself supported this belief of theirs, but say that the non-shia Muslim guardians of the Qur'an have hidden it from them.

Reza Rezvan - Please first study and then talk. What you claim about Abdullah ibn Saba is completely wrong. please click here to find out the truth.

Muhammad Rasheed - The entire point to this article you linked to, is that there isn't any evidence in the literature that supports the ibn Saba theory. You do not find this ironic coming from a shia sect member?

Did you also happen to notice there is nothing in the Qur'an that supports the existence of the shia sect itself? In fact, exactly the opposite. You're only being defensive about it because the historical record demonstrates the bloody split in the early Muslim community was not only your fault, but it was based on un-Islamic claims that cannot be supported from within the doctrine of Allah and His messenger.




Hell On Earth?


Jane CP Wei - Will people ever realize that the inequality issues of the world do not have roots in race relations, but power hungry leaders with goals of unfair competition?

The wealthy of all colors conspire against the poor by miring them in these false “wars” against “racial discrimination”? More people suffer because of the income gap between the rich and poor! Filthy rich members of disadvantaged racial minorities fuel this to kill off future competition.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's true that some form of wealthy ruling class has taken unfair advantage of the poor for countless ages all over the world. The current wealthy ruling elite families that dominate the globe have done so only within the last 500 yrs, and from underneath the banner of White Supremacy. Western Civilization is absolutely a race-based hierarchal caste system... 'race' and 'class' are entwined as a legacy of the Atlantic Slave trade and jim crow laws that enriched it. Because of this, wealthy minorities jockey for position of influence in the lower-level leadership ranks, and often make decisions that subjugate/exploit their fellow minorities to gain favor from their White bosses.

The fight against classism inequality is ancient, with this particular form of it absolutely rooted in both class and race.

Jane CP Wei - Here’s a problem with buying into the race hierarchy, and correct me if you disagree — If one buys into the “race-based haste system” then one is essentially buying into the potential view that the hell that nearly all of the majority religions speak of is on Earth. The hell pits of fire, as interpreted through the scientific lens, would be the earth when it is no longer inhabitable by the folks who might have evolved with lighter skin and zero heat tolerance (if you evolved from Iceland then in all likelihood, you would die first if global warming took a leap forward). Is it that the “God” or whatever power that has/had control over planet Earth, has such a hierarchy in mind for those who are darker-skinned to stay until the end (when the heat becomes intolerable)? Because if that were the case, and white people get to leave the planet first in space exploration, would that not make you upset? I would rather not buy into it and wish/work towards a planet of the most collaborate and intelligent beings of all races (note that diversity helps survival of the species). Why is that such a dauntingly difficult message for anyone to accept?

Muhammad Rasheed - Jane, I recognize that this society has been built into a race-based caste hierarchy, but that doesn't mean I subscribe to the White Supremacist Ideology myself. That seems to be the essence of what you are expressing.

White supremacy is a lie, and a great evil. I do NOT accept it as a truth, and only see it as a tool of my enemy.

Mario Rossi - But most western countries didn't join slave trade and have nothing to do with Jim crow's laws. Seems to me you equate west with US. Besides the world is moving east but the differences still there, not only , even bigger.

Muhammad Rasheed - All Western nations participated in the slave-fueled economy. France, Britain, Portugal, and Spain operated the capture/distribution/labor cartel, while all the others invested by purchasing shares in slave taking companies, and the buying & selling of slave produced goods.

The other Western nations didn't literally implement the "Jim Crow" laws by name, but they all practiced discrimination/racist policies against Blacks as an ongoing legacy of the superiority complex developed from a culture that enslaved and exploited a people based on racial phenotypes.

Mario Rossi - Than even Africans states partecipated, and much more than many other western states. The investing in slaves companies was individual maybe, not by states, and most didn’t partecipate anyway.. most western counties didn’t have anything to do with slave trade.

Which racists policies against blacks you talk about? Do you have any reference or you just suppose so? Which superiority complex?

They weren’t enslaved based on racial phenotype, but simply because from weak countries, like it has always been.. there were slaves from central-north europe before for the very same reasons, and slaves even from europe for the same reasons.

Muhammad Rasheed - African nations participated in slaving in the traditional ways the practice was done throughout human history, and never because of race-based permanent chattel class delegation as established by the West. Western investing in slave companies was permeated throughout the entire interconnected greater European society as the slave-driven economy permeated all aspects of Western life. They were ALL invested in it whether they literally purchased shares or not.

The European racist policies that even now have Blacks discriminated against in those cultures. Those. Do you hold references for your offensive racism denial stance? My references can be found in the following sources:

1.) Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America 4 volume reprint; originally published 1930-1935

2.) Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities by Craig Steven Wilder

(Despite the titles, these two are comprehensive works that describe Europe's involvement as well.)

3.) History Ireland: The Irish and the Atlantic slave trade 

4.) [VIDEO] Britains Forgotten Slave Owners (pt 1 of 2) "Profit and Loss"

European countries 100% targeted Africans based on racial phenotypes, built a race-based hierarchal caste structure, and deliberated avoided enslaving fellow White people. Whites participated in 'indentured servitude' programs that were nothing like the slave system.