Friday, July 21, 2017

Encounter with the Soldier of God

Muhammad Rasheed - [whiny sing-song voice] "Why did you have to bring up race?" [/whiny sing-song voice]

Soldier of God - To be fair, as a non white, not all whites are racist or bring racism into the world. If talking about ppl like KKK, then you have a point.

Muhammad Rasheed -

Soldier of God - Should I take a seat when people say all blacks are monkey and criminals too? Or that Muslims are inherently violent?

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering that NO Blacks are monkeys, and that no human beings are inherently violent, the answer would be "no."

Those Blacks that aren't criminals may take a seat.

Soldier of God - I'd rather stand up for righteousness than sit on the sidelines.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's your duty to stand up for righteousness. Agreed. It's not your duty to take comments personally if they do not apply to you. Hyperbole is a normal part of human discourse. Getting offended over clear exaggeration is a mark of immaturity, not righteousness.In context, the meme references Whites in discussions of topics that are historically saturated with racism. Among themselves, they are used to the luxury of ignoring the racism part of the topic; when a Black brings it up they get uncomfortable. The "Why did you have to bring up race?" whine gives the deflective impression that the Black 'played the race card' or even invented it. Just because they have the luxury of pretending there is no racism while in their bubble, doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the topic.

Their cowardly discomfort isn't a good enough reason for the victims of racism to avoid the topic themselves.

Soldier of God - I'm not offended by any of it, just saying none of it is true & that gullible people believe generalities so it's good to speak against it.

Muhammad Rasheed - In fact, coddling their cowardice is PART of the racism society perpetuates, and is one of the reasons why the foul evil endures.

Soldier of God - That's true, but why focus on whites only? Blacks browns yellows reds do so as well

Muhammad Rasheed - "Blacks browns yellows" aren't the dominant conqueror group that hoards wealth & power at everyone else's expense, Soldier.

First, destroy the very real 500 yr old problem, and then do the lesser clean-up on the other side.

Soldier of God - I've had dialogue with black supremacists who don't wanna speak about race/issues with anyone who doesn't look like them. Same with arabs. China? Nigeria? Venezuela? Plenty of is do, but we live in a majority white part of the world, it's only natural that the majority do it.

Muhammad Rasheed - The majority Whites are the ones that spread their racist supremacy through colonialism, and it's why Nigeria/Venezuela experience it. Those are perfect examples of the side effects of the greater problem I mentioned. For China it's similar. There's very well may be a defense mechanism because of what Whites did to them during the Opium Wars. It would still function as a side effect to the evils the Whites first unleashed upon the world. Today they continue to have influence. Destroy that influence, and the rest of the world will be able to snap back to pre-Eurocentric normal.

Muhammad Rasheed - Racism issues among other groups are merely a side effect of the core racism the whites invented and cultivate for their power monopoly.

Soldier of God - Racism existed before whites tho.  Since before biblical times. I don't blame white man for racism.

Muhammad Rasheed - Racism 100% did NOT exist before Whites transformed their conquering from Christian-based to White Supremacy-based. Racism is only 500 yrs old. It's entire point is to enable Whites to monopoly resources based on race phenotypes. This is new in the world.

Soldier of God - But it's existed way before then.I've read studies Into ancient history that Babylonians Assyrians  and Egyptians were racist bigots as well

Muhammad Rasheed - No one ever hoarded wealth & power and deliberately held down others to exploit based on race phenoypes, Soldier. No one.

Soldier of God - Egyptians were racist to Israelites. Arabs racists towards blacks. Of course it existed before whites and Christianity.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Egyptians and the children of Israel were both Black. Arabs are predominantly a Black people. Your understanding is skewed in an inaccurate, Eurocentric direction. Considering what the historical record actually looks like, caping for wypipo isn't a 'soldier of God' trait. Just the opposite in fact...

Soldier of God - Arabs castrated blacks and called them raisin heads.  Most Arabs are semetic not hemetic. They don't have negroid phenotypes. Same with most

Muhammad Rasheed - Most Arabs are Black/negroid peoples. Yes, they are. Light-skinned Arabs are int he minority, and came from mixed relationship families.

Soldier of God - Ancient Egyptians and Israelites.  You're worldview seems to be a very afrocentric one. I don't rely in Europe or Africa centricity.

Muhammad Rasheed - You have 100% demonstrated that you rely on the white-washed, very Eurocentric version of history. Unfortunately. The ancient Egyptians of that land's Golden Age were Black African. Abraham's family were Cushite aristocrats and were very Black.

Soldier of God - It's funny because I go out of my way to not do so, as i debate many black "hebrew Israelites" and white supremacists as well.

Muhammad Rasheed - No offense, but from what you've revealed here, you no doubt made a fool of yourself. Please research. Start here:

The Racial Contract
by Charles W. Mills

Read this:

The Falsification of Afrikan Consciousness:
Eurocentric History, Psychiatry and the Politics of White Supremacy

by Amos N. Wilson

Soldier of God - Abraham was from the line of Shem, as all abrahamic beliefs have it. Egyptians, like the Israelites mixed with other peoples so they became more varied. Judah married a Caananite woman, so His ancestors were darker than the tribe of Dan, who didn't intermarry as much.

Soldier of God - Do those books prove Abraham and the Israelites were "black"? Or that racism didn't exist before europeans?

Soldier of God - Do you have scientific studies to prove your claims, because I have some that shows that truth is not afrocentric or eurocentric.

Muhammad Rasheed - So far you have unashamedly supported the Eurocentric worldview of everything we've discussed, Soldier. Please read those two books.

Soldier of God - you can't let your  apparent hate for white people skew your worldview away from actual fact, my friend.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Please don't call me "friend" while talking like an agent of my dedicated enemy. Thank you.

Read this, too:

Ebony and Ivy:
Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities

by Craig Steven Wilder

Then come back when you are done.

Soldier of God - Seems like an ad hominen to me. I've read much on the Afrocentric worldview (from many diff people) but it's mostly philosophy, not science.

Muhammad Rasheed - These I've provided are high-level scholarly works that reveal the history of the subject.

Soldier of God - Well my brother, Idk what whites have done to you personally but you gotta love your enemy. If i was the same way, i'd hate everyone.

Muhammad Rasheed - It has nothing to do with love/hate, but about being "wise as the serpent & innocent as the dove." Please read those then come back. The prophet Joshua (pbuh) didn't have to hate in order to be wise and canny in battle against a dedicated enemy.

Soldier of God - I'll read them (might've already read excerpts from them).Tho your worldview seems to not be grounded in truth, from my experience/studies.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hold that thought, read the books, then let's have a fresh discussion based on what you learned, please. If you continue to sound the same then I promise to let it be, and you can go your way, and I'll go mine. Deal?

Soldier of God - But His enemy was literally Satan and Death, and He beat them both. He even did a miracle for a centurion, so for God it isn't about skin.

Muhammad Rasheed - Whites subjugate exploit non-whites to hoard wealth & power, and they choose to do it along the lines of racial phenotypes. I didn't say that Joshua's enemies did the same exact thing. You kind of missed the point there, dude. lol The point was the refutation of your idea that I have to "hate" in order to be a soldier of God against oppression. That's a fallacy.

Soldier of God - Sure Mr.Rasheed. If you don't want to conversate then just let me know. I've had these convos and read similar books and they have yet made me hate whites. But i'll read for my own knowledge and wisdom. God bless Rasheed. Peace be upon you.

Soldier of God - No i get it, I just dont see it as the same as what you think you're doing, but it's alright.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's also something that my enemy says all the time because he desperately wants me to own MLK's 'non-violent' philosophy towards him.

Soldier of God - Hey, the devil's a snake. sometimes, he'll make you strike him first before he goes in for a kill. MLK, or Malcolm X, death is inevitable.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your insistence that I must 'hate' means you don't get it, but hopefully you'll at least be able to understand my POV once you read these. I referenced the Hebrew prophets as an example that you don't have to 'hate' in order to be properly prepared and know thy enemy's ways.

Soldier of God - When death is inevitable in this life, Personally, I'll rather be with MLK (for many reason) or Marcus Garvey, but to each his own.

Soldier of God - well to use violent, you have to hate for it to be effectual. Only non-violence can utilize love as intended.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you insist that the prophets of the One God hated? Passion and anger is not the same as "hate," Soldier.

Soldier of God - I know, but if you're not careful, it can turn to hate. That's why God says to us to love your enemy, and pray for those who persecute you.

Soldier of God - some prophets did but for the things God Himself hates (Proverbs 6:16-19). Even in the Quran, Allah hates certain things Surah (5:87)

Muhammad Rasheed - Allah tells us to fight the oppressor so that we all can live in Peace. He hates oppressors, those who spread mischief in the earth. As the victim of the White man's oppressive campaigns, I am rightfully passionately angry, and it is my duty to beat him back. That does not equal 'hate.'  As long as I do not give up, and do everything in accordance with God's rules, He will be with me.

Muhammad Rasheed - The two are not exclusive. Jesus was certainly praying for his enemies while he instructed the apostles to fetch those swords.

Soldier of God - passion and anger for the right reasons is good, but not if it makes you think that there is something wrong with being white.

Soldier of God - swords used once (by Peter) who Jesus healed the man who Peter struck on the ear (luke 22:51). Swords unused in battle.

Muhammad Rasheed - They were unused only because the apostles fell asleep on guard duty and allowed the enemy to capture them. Jesus (pbuh) certainly didn't have them get the swords for decoration. You're missing the point again. lol

Soldier of God - I understand your sentiment but our world views are just different. I'll try to understand you'r WV more clearly though in the future.

Muhammad Rasheed - All I can ask is for the try. I'll appreciate it, Soldier. Peace.

Soldier of God - but like we started, i'll stand up to any oppression/oppressor in the way Jesus and MLK did.. No matter who it comes from.

Muhammad Rasheed - What was the 'way' that Jesus and MLK did it? With courage and conviction in the name of the God they served?

Soldier of God - considering Jesus was almost stoned multiple times, they didn't use them because Jesus would've never let them.

Muhammad Rasheed - He instructed them to fetch the swords intending to not use them? Your doctrine is in the way of common sense...

Soldier of God - Jesus and Muhammad are not the same.

Muhammad Rasheed - Their missions were the same. The responses of their people were what was different (big time).

Soldier of God - yes, and not advocating violence.

Muhammad Rasheed - Let me remind you that Jesus instructed the apostles to fetch those swords. hahahaha

MLK's non-violent political stance wasn't the position of Abraham's Lord, and thus, lacked inherent virtue.

Soldier of God - common sense need not always apply to Christ, who spoke in parables,ate with sinners, raised people from the dead, never advocated violence.

Muhammad Rasheed - All of those items had definitive common sense motives to them while the last is a doctrinal fiction. He clearly wasn't opposed to violence.

Soldier of God - which were never used or instructed for any type of self defense.Christ was unlike any other man,even His apostles couldn't fully understand

Muhammad Rasheed - The Christ Jesus, son of Mary was a human being like other humans. His mission was special though, and so was his origin. His apostles often let him down. Their understanding was suspect from the jump. lol

Soldier of God - Old covenant laws are revealed under the new covenant that is grace in Jesus, its the best way to inherit the values & righteousness of God.

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering "sword gate" it wasn't Jesus' position either, dude. lol You're being stubborn based on doctrinal blindness. Jesus' position in all things was clearly no different than that of the prophets that preceded him.

Soldier of God - I believe He was God in the flesh and is more than what u make Him to be, but to each their own. It's clear, Jesus never advocated violence, and He opposed violence on people by the way He lived His life, His words and His works. Simple as that. When you heal the one against you.

Muhammad Rasheed - The scripture is plain enough. The "God in the flesh" doctrine isn't apparent within the very bible record of his life that you hold.

Soldier of God - it's clear on how Jesus viewed injuring other people.

Soldier of God - Read Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5). Jesus position and knowledge of God's  Word goes deeper than previous prophets.

Soldier of God - considering even the prophets of old foretold about God dwelling amongst humanity (Isaiah 9:6), and NT (Colossians 2:9). it clearly does.

Muhammad Rasheed - God is ever-present and is always closer than your juggler vein. Deifying the messenger wasn't necessary for that analogy.

Soldier of God - Prophesies of God dwelling amongst men and verses of Christ having the fullness of God within Him have nothing to do with His spiritual presence with humanity. if it was so, those verses would not make sense within the context of their reading.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meanwhile, they make 100% sense thru the context of His spiritual presence, but conflict with the message through your 'sonship' doctrine.

Soldier of God - It's clear you're a proud black Muslim, and that's your right to be so and I dont hate you for it. It makes me interested in your worldview

Soldier of God - I have to go because it's getting late, but hopefully i can get to read those 3 books soon and hope you stay safe so next time we can speak about what we've learned. Peace Rasheed. Be safe and may the God of Abraham bless you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Peace, Soldier! Have a good night.

The Character Lynching of O.J. Simpson

Jennifer Lang - Why do some people still believe that O. J. Simpson did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson?

Muhammad Rasheed - For me, the list of items that led the jury to the "not guilty" verdict:

  1. the glove didn't fit
  2. Fuhrman's racist agenda
  3. the LAPD's historical racism combined with the odd fumbling of evidence by veteran officers
  4. the impossibility of creating a murder scene blood bath and cleaning up then rushing to the airport without smearing blood everywhere in such a small time frame
  5. high-level expert testimony stating it wasn't possible for O.J. to have done it from a technical standpoint
  6. Fuhrman's 5th amendment stance

… very heavily leans towards innocence.

By contrast, the list of reasons why people do believe O.J. committed the crime:

  1. "he did it just because I KNOW he did it"
  2. white people really, REALLY think he did it
  3. white people enjoy ruining the lives of Black people for their sadistic amusement
  4. O.J. is a Black man

…aren't strong enough reasons to make me 'believe' O.J. is guilty the way the racist and/or easily-influenced-by-racists sheeple masses have.

Bakkah Rasheed-Shabazz - I watched the televised lynching of O.J. every single day while living on campus and attending the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI. There were masses of students and staff watching with blood in dripping from their eyes waiting to take him by force and hang him from the nearest tree. Among that mob of salt was a few grains of black pepper, who looked at our much smaller numbers sitting in silence to observe and listen to every thing the enemy had to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that O.J. was not only capable of such a heartless, gang style double murder, but he absolutely must be guilty for no other reason that he was arrested, charged, and on forced to defend himself in court. Fortunately, this time a so-called black man that had been accepted by white people for the majority of his life as a "star" football player, had enough money to hire the best defense attorney. The whole trial was the first televised one in history. It was treated like a new tv program that was used to divide the nation along the lines of race and class. The set-up that eventually resulted in a criminal trial, for which O.J. is being released after 9 years in prison is more like an attonement for the double murders that the mainstream media continue to tell their viewers he "got away with." Yeah, I agree that O.J. got away from the false charges of double murder, but he will never escape the stigma of being assumed guilty as charged. 

Clifton Hatchett - He not Black, he's O.J.

He said it.

I have no love for Black People who don't like the fact that they're Black.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meh.

You knew Black people were broken when you showed up. Those are the last people you should be turning your back on, or having a hard-line stance of unforgiveness.

Take your brother's hand, please. You don't have to like him, or agree with his displayed weaknesses, but we need to be together.

Clifton Hatchett - He's not we.

He's that dude that's terrified of me.

I actually know his types.

I'm all for us, but if there is any amongst us, who do not want to be amongst us,...

They can go straight to Hell.

Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't say nothing about 'loving.' Calm down.

Clifton Hatchett - Lollol... I'll consider it.

Rayshan Hampton - Standing with an alleged murderer is having unnecessary blood on my hands... I'm not gonna stand with somebody just because they're my color. That's like standing with Michael Vick for abusing animals.

Muhammad Rasheed - As I recall, he's not an "alleged murderer" since he was found not guilty of the charge. The intense butthurt expressed by the wypipo over it is a public 'character lynching' by the mob.

Please don't partner with wypipo when they do what they do.

Clifton Hatchett - He killed somebody?

Muhammad Rasheed - No.

Muhammad Rasheed - There was a high-profile homicide, and one of the most notoriously racist PDs in the country was pressured to hurry up and solve it. It was all down hill from there.

Stop listening to wypipo, please. Truth rarely flows from that direction (when it does it's by accident).

Clifton Hatchett - I thought I missed something.

Rayshan Hampton - Do you know what ALLEGED means? Why do you think I included the word... you know, a simple Google search would've saved you a lot of energy and agitation typing such an ignorant response.

Muhammad Rasheed - Calm down, please. I thought you were using the legal term, as in for someone preparing for the trial that hasn't happened yet. I know you're mad that he's paroled, but I'm not the one that did it. Chill.

Rayshan Hampton - Fair argument I'll give you a pass but don't insinuate I'm a coon

Muhammad Rasheed - Thanks for the pass. :)

All I'm saying is that, despite evidence to the contrary, wypipo BELIEVE he did it, apparently for no other reason than because he's a Black dude. It's not a good look to partner with Adventures in Whiteness, or to be seen in that vicinity.

Muhammad Rasheed - At least have a REAL reason for why you'd think he really did it. #LetMeSeeYourPapersGal

Ralo Noon - Yeah but it will make white people mad if he get out so .. Let the juice he might have learned his lesson for saying that Dumb shit !!!

Muhammad Rasheed - Right. That was a long time ago. Especially for him.

Elton Leonard - we dont get mad at them because we've accepted their culture by force.

Muhammad Rasheed - "awww... look at that face. I could never be mad at you, my diabolical oppressor. It's so #adorbs when you falsely accuse me of rape."

"I'll call you 'Nkechi Amare Diallo' if you want. I think it's cute. It go with yo eyes."

Clifton Hatchett - A long time ago?


I have zero forgiveness in me for those types.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Those types" make up the bulk of the damn diaspora. There's a reason why Blacks are broken, remember?

You need room for forgiveness in your repertoire, Clif, or you'll be fighting the Revolution all by yourself...

Clifton Hatchett - Forgiveness seems so dangerous fam.

I've tried, honestly.

Something just boils in me man. I love me, and us, so when I see or hear us talk as though being Black some how is a bad thing,

It bothers all the shit outta me.

I stink right now.

Muhammad Rasheed - It IS dangerous. It IS risky.

You also can't fight a war by yourself. The people of your nation are broken, but they are all you have. Be willing to forgive them of the symptoms of their well-documented broken state.

Or recruit Rachel Dolezal. #PickOneCrazy

Clifton Hatchett - I can always count on you.  I'm always working to be a better human.

The amount of progress I've made has yet to be determined.

BaShiru Johnson - @Muhammad Rasheed... thanks for the insight.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm here to help.

Yeah, y'all were crazy for that. No knock against Cuba, but O.J. had that alpha-superhero thing happening.
Julian E Herring - I see what you mean. The square jaw, high cheek bone vs Cuba's puffy low cheeks and his "what the heck is going on with" jawline.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Confused Eurocentrists Confuse Themselves with Confused Double-Talk

Anonymous - If Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth (assuming they were Arabs or Caucasians), how come there are Africans, Chinese, Indians, Malays, etc.?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why in the world would I assume Adam & Eve were Caucasians when it is physically, scientifically impossible for Caucasians to birth darker races?

Why in the world would I assume Adam & Eve were Arabs, when the Arab nation were the children of Ishmael, who was born aeons later?

Does Eurocentrism ever attempt to make sense? Asking for a friend.

Anonymous - Sorry. Let me be clear, the assumption that Adam and Eve is Caucasian/Arab/others is based on what is said in the Quran/Bible, if I understand correctly. I'm not saying that this is true. I'm just saying that, if these claims were true, how can people of other ethnicity emerge? If two married Caucasians gave birth to an African/black baby today, would you think it's possible, or would you think that the wife is a dirty whore? There are many studies that show that there were humans who lived before Adam and Eve, so, with these evidence, suggests that the holy scriptures are wrong or inaccurate about the creation of mankind (I'm saying this with all respect for all religions, and despite being a Muslim myself, I've been skeptical ever since my teacher couldn't answer this question when I was 9 y/o).

Hence, if the theory of creation in the scriptures does not match scientific findings, it would raise doubts on the whole teachings of religions; in that, they were not words from God, and that they were just an accumulation of knowledge/guidelines compiled by Humans, adjusted to suit their own needs. For example, we know that the Abraham religion all have one root, even in the Quran it was mentioned that the Gospel, Book of Psalms, and Torah precedes the Quran and were revealed to Jesus, David, and Moses respectively, and all these people are recognised in the Quran as Prophets. Now, if this is true, does it not make more sense that religion started from one person/tribe who evolved as per Theory of Evolution and not created from clay, and as time passes and the earlier teachings spread to many, certain powerful people/groups started to ‘change’ the teachings to suit their own personal/political needs? Take ISIS for example, they changed the interpretation of Quran to suit their own political views and needs. If this could happen in the modern world where knowledge is easily accessible and people actually buy into it (ISIS, not Islam), who's to say it didn't happen thousands of years ago? If God exists as per religion, do we really think He would call for His followers to act in such barbaric ways?

Now, let me reiterate, I'm not saying that the scriptures are wrong and God does not exist as I can't prove it, but so far, the evidence I read so far suggests that scientific theories makes more sense, plus no one can prove that God exists, except in the scriptures. It is quite convenient that ‘miracles’, if they actually happened, only happened thousands of years ago with no concrete evidence, but not today when we need it more than ever?

P/S I know this is a sensitive topic, but please let's be civil and have a friendly discussion/debate.

Muhammad Rasheed -  Anonymous wrote: Let me be clear, the assumption that Adam and Eve is Caucasian/Arab/others is based on what is said in the Quran/Bible, if I understand correctly.”

Then you do NOT understand correctly, and you are NOT clear.

Being “created from clay” means the same substances that are found within the earth are found within you. As De Grasse said we’re all made of “star stuff.” God didn’t literally fashion you from ‘clay’ like a potter.

The two Semite nations under Abraham were but the last of all those who preached God’s message, a message that is far older than the roughly 6,000 yrs of the time of Abraham to Muhammad (peace be upon the messengers). The last time there was a global cataclysm that matched the description of the biblical flood within the existence of modern homo sapiens, it was 12,800 yrs ago. So the time between Noah (pbuh) and Abraham was approximately 6,800 yrs. The earliest homo sapien fossils found to date are estimated to be 160,000 yrs old, and if we wanted to play stupid and be scientifically irresponsible and proclaim that those remains were THE oldest homo sapiens, then that would make 150,000+ yrs between Adam and Noah, but realistically, homo sapiens are probably far older than even that time frame, since we have no idea how long Adam was hanging around before Eve showed up, and how much time those two were hanging out before the fall. Allah did say that He rose up a prophet among EVERY people, some He told us about, many He did not. As you see there is a ton of interesting data missing from your 9 yr old levels of speculation. I suggest you study more.


Paul Coomber - We cannot be sure what Adams skin colour was. It is quite reasonable to assume that he had within his genes the ability to pass on to his children many different types of features and skin colours.

We can’t even be sure that Eve had the same skin colour as Adam. Added to that, we can’t be sure whether their numerous sons and daughters shared the same skin colour.

Until the flood it’s probable that the colour differences were less extreme and thus seldom referred to. Noahs son Ham appears to have been of a darker complexion than Shem and Japheth, but it is clear that it was of little consequence to the family.

It seems that the extremely different racial features first began to make themselves more apparent only after the flood when the various family groups began to separate from one another and live in more isolated groups after their languages were confused.

But, in answer to this question, the various shades of skin colour were all encoded in the original DNA contained in the cells of Adam and Eve. It was just a matter of time before these differences began to make themselves apparent.

Muhammad Rasheed - Since the Black race has within its genes “the ability to pass on to his children many different types of features and skin colours,” and the Caucasian does not have this ability, then we can absolutely be sure what color Adam’s skin was. He was a Black man.

Paul Coomber - Does it really matter what colour his skin was? We have no way of being sure. What we do know is that at the time of the flood all of the humans in existence were wiped out and only Noah, his three sons, and their four wives survived. What their skin colours were is a little easier to determine when we look at the races that later came from each of their family lines. Still, we cannot be dogmatic about any of this, so why make a fuss of it?

A more important question than the one about Adam’s bodily features is why and how Adam lost God’s approval, and what meaning this has for us today.—Rom. 5:12.

Muhammad Rasheed - You’re asking a member of the race who has been continuously attacked with White Supremacist propaganda to break his spirit in order to make him easier to exploit, if it matters whether everything the White Supremacist has told him for the last 500 years was a lie.

Was that really a question?

Paul Coomber - Are you here to have a discussion? Or are you just looking for a fighter?

If the latter then this discussion is over.

I enjoy discussing these biblical questions, but I have no intention of getting involved in a political debate, which is where these racial discussions generally end up.

Muhammad Rasheed - It sounds like you are implying that it isn’t a discussion unless I agree with you. Or is the 'discussion' you prefer having some kind of semi-formal game to see who can most creatively plug the holes within the extremely problematic Eurocentric explanation of history?

Paul Coomber - Muhammad, this started out as a discussion about Adam and Eve, and nothing else. That is all I am willing to comment on. So let’s just leave it there now.

Muhammad Rasheed - Specifically, this started out as a speculative discussion about Adam & Eve’s race, which of course is a topic pregnant with historical, socio-political baggage and tension. If that baggage and tension is too intense for you to deal with, then perhaps you should withdraw from the discussion, Paul.

Paul Coomber - I will do just that Muhammad.

Muhammad Rasheed - Peace.

William Rundle - Adam & Eve were a mixture of all ethnical groups before any of these groups even existed; they had the DNA within them capable of producing all of them. All people and ethnic groups descended from Adam & Eve.

Muhammad Rasheed - By definition, “a mixture of all ethnical groups” describes the Black race, who are capable of birthing every racial phenotype.

Geoff Cutler - Firstly Adam and Eve were here about 37,000 years ago, and we already had races by that time. On the other hand, the “first parents” arrived about 993,500 years ago. (Yeah that’s the Urantia Book. Maybe it is really accurate, I don’t know, but it has a habit of specifying exact dates like that.)

Muhammad Rasheed - Since the earliest modern human fossils (‘homo sapien idaltu’) is estimated to be 160,000 yrs old, how do you possibly justify a 37,000 years ago date for the patriarch’s family?

Steve James - Adam and Eve would have been proto-racial. They are the father and mother of all, thus all races would trace back to them. Therefore, they would have to be all races or rather, proto-racial.

Muhammad Rasheed - All races trace back to the Black race, therefore the Black race is that very “proto-race” you are describing.

Michael Pfister - Adam and Eve carried the genes for EVERY type of human alive today, plus the types that are now extinct, such as the so-called “Neanderthal” men and some very wide varieties of pygmies and giants that lived in antiquity. That’s a lot of diversity.

It comes about the same way we get dog breeds today from a fairly common ancient dog: natural selection. Add in the fact that humans tend to like other humans that look like them in terms of sexual attraction and we mate with people we have a cultural connection to, and you have a powerful natural selection tool to split out different races. Especially when you factor in the language division at the Tower of Babel, which split people into groups and separated them by a language barrier.

Muhammad Rasheed - Does the notoriously recessive gene Caucasian race “carry the genes for EVERY type of human alive today”? lol Then what does your answer have to do with the baffling and confused assumption that Adam & Eve were Caucasian?

Michael Pfister - My apologies, I thought I was clear: Adam and Eve could not have been Caucasian or Arabs. If they had been, then there would not be Africans, Chinese, Indians, etc. If you make the assumption that they were in fact Caucasian or Arab, then you eliminate the other possibilities. I don’t know what you would call them other than “human”, but they were probably dark skinned and I imagine they more closely resembled someone of Indian or perhaps African descent than Caucasian.

Margarita Mazina - Edit: Arabs are Caucasians.

Caucasoid race includes people in Europe, North Africa, Middle East and South Asia. They share similar skull characteristics differing from other races.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) "Arab" is not a race. The Arabs contain all racial groups with the most abundant being the Black race.

2.) The House of Saud has partnered with the Western-European governments to push forward that 'light-skinned euro-look' as the standard of beauty, which gives the illusion that "Arabs are Caucasians." They are NOT.

3.) Abraham's father was a Black man... an aristocrat from a highly-influential Cushite family. The Arab was always predominantly Black/brown-skinned as the tribes reflect today.

4.) It is common knowledge that the human skull is very malleable during the birthing event, and people shape the skull however way they like, often to cultural or even just familial preference. The Eurocentric insistence that the skull shape "of the different races" of the same species means anything, is only a reflection of stubbornness, not a propensity for science.

Margarita Mazina - Caucasoid race is an anthropoloical term, look it up. What people call “Caucasian” in U.S. (with its fucked up Racial Census that has nothing to do with science) is simply European.

I never said Arabs are a “race".

I don't keep track of conspiracy theories, so I am not interested in listening to another one. “Big races” are determined by skull structure, then there are sub-races or ethnicities (depends which classification you look up), that's all what modern anthropology has proven. Ethnicities are hard to determine, as certain genetic clusters canbe shared by different random groups of people in different parts of the world.

Muhammad Rasheed - “Arabs are Caucasians” is definitely a “conspiracy theory” since these predominantly Black people certainly don’t have Caucasus mountains origin. You just don’t keep track of non-Eurocentric conspiracy theories, which receive artificial legitimacy from the systemic racist institutions that birthed the Anthropology fields.

But to each his/her own.

Margarita Mazina - I don't understand what is so “racist” in my statement, honestly. It's not the end of the world that people's skulls look different. Racist would be to presume they are somehow inferior of superior because of their build.

Muhammad Rasheed - Margarita, considering I’ve recently had experiences in which White people who were actually supposed to be actively in the anti-racism fight turn around and become racists — and 100% didn’t see that they were doing it! — I honestly have zero faith that you will EVER understand. But it is all one.

Please return to your regularly scheduled whatever-you-do.

Margarita Mazina - What do you mean by “black"? Arabs are anthropoloically Caucasoid, not Negroid.

Modern Europeans don't live in Caucasus, either, but somehow you don't have a problem with calling them Caucasian.

Obviously, Arabs aren't white (European Caucasians). But it's strange to presume they are black. The only group that is sometimes classified as “black" are aboriginal Australians as their skull structure is similar to Sub-Saharian Africans. Scholars still argue about that.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Arabs are anthropoloically Caucasoid, not Negroid."


" don't have a problem with calling them Caucasian..."

You call yourselves "Caucasians," remember? lol  I didn't make it up, genius. I actually prefer "wypipo" for you, quiet as it's kept.

"But it's strange to presume they are black."


" their skull structure is similar to..."

Their "skull structure" is whatever the hell their people shaped their newborns' heads into.  Will you please stop with your bs quackery?  What, did you minor in chiropractic, too?  Your "education" is garbage, Margarita.  Please STOP.  jesus...!

*Margarita blocked me from commenting on her posts*

Agha Talal - Firstly I don’t know if you realize this but Arabs, North Africans and even some Indians are technically Caucasians. If you think that Caucasians means white people as opposed to brown or black then you are incorrect. White people along with Arabs, Africans, Indians are considered a sub race of Caucasian. In the west people usually use the word “Caucasian” to refer to white people only but this is technically not true. The notion of classifying white people as a separate race originated in the 17th century. Otherwise phenotypically Arabs, some ethnic groups of white people, Some ethnic groups in India, some ethnic groups in Africa are related to each other and fall withing the same taxon of Caucasian.

Furthermore not all white people are Caucasians either. You will find white Hispanics, white Brazilians and white South Africans.

Secondly considering that Adam was THE FIRST MAN it logically follows that he cannot be classified into any of the races that we classify ourselves. ALL races originated from him, in other words all phenotypes that exist in modern day humans originated from Adam.

If you are referring to skin color then the Islamic texts state that Adam was of reddish complexion. Infact the meaning of the name Adam itself in the semetic languages is
  • to be like the Earth; or one who is like the Earth (in his appearance,nature etc.)
  • to be red like the Earth

After going through the question a second time I realize that I haven’t actually answered it.

Regarding the human race there are more than one origin stories. The one put forth by evolutionists is that humans evolved from hominids. They reject the existence of Adam and Eve. According to what we know about human genetics it is scientifically impossible for mankind to have originated from a single pair.

On the other hand the Judeo-Christian and Islamic version of the origin story of man is that Eve (may Allah be pleased with her) would give birth to twins, a boy and a girl in a single birthing. The way marriages worked was that the son from the first birth would be paired with the daughter from the second birth, while the son from the second birth would be paired with the daughter from the first birth. By today’s standard this would be considered incest. But that is what we believe happened in the ancient world.

Muhammad Rasheed - So even though humans came out of Africa, this dubious and mysterious “technical” measuring tool you are referencing categorizes them under “Caucasian” now?


This re-purposing of the term is problematic, considering the heavy baggage that particular term holds within both an extremely racially divisive society, and within an extremely racist field of study.

Agha Talal - I have edited my answer. I suggest that you give it a second look and tell me what you think.

I don’t live in the west therefore I cannot relate to the “racial divisiveness” that you are mentioning. Also I am not sure what you mean when you say “extremely racist field of study”. What field of study are you referring to and how is it racist ?

Muhammad Rasheed - So after your edit, I notice that the word “technically” is still being over-emphasized in the same “Look at this hand so you won’t see what the other hand is doing!” kind of way, while still using it to legitimize the bizarre categorizing of Africans under 'Caucasians.' Curious.

So how did your edits alter the implications of my first response again?

Muhammad Rasheed - As an aside, this thread is the very first time I've encountered one of those "But what about the Arab Slave Trade?!? The Arabs enslaved Blacks, too!!" wypipo agents that the Afrocentrics are always going on about. I believed that they existed, of course, I just never engaged with one before. It turns out that coons come in all colors, don't cha know? I'm not going to go so far as to say that the puppet agent of my enemy is worse than my enemy, but I know for sure I don't like these assholes.

Agha Talal - The Caucasian classification is based upon cranial and skeletal morphology not hierarchy and includes people from different parts of the World. African is a geographical classification, the two are as different as apples are to oranges. Not all Africans are black skinned and include races belonging to variety of ethnic groups some of which are white skinned and some of which are brown skinned. Not ALL Africans are Caucasians and not ALL Caucasians are Africans. You are conflating two different criterias.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who made the decision to use the extremely problematic, and baggage ridden ‘Caucasian’ term to describe cranial & skeletal morphology? Considering the African continent has gangs of varying ethnic groups converging upon it from all over — drooling with greed over the abundance of its natural resources — who made the decision to name all of these foreign agents as “African” while categorizing a very specific group of them under the “Caucasian” umbrella? Identify the specific institutional body that is responsible for this, please.

Agha Talal - Well, my purpose for mentioning the difference between Caucasian and African was purely informative. You are the one who steered the conversation towards racism and politics.

If you feel that these classifications are problematic then you are under no obligation to refer to them.

How would you classify the races ?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol The topic is inherently full of racism and politics. Pretending it is otherwise is part of that game.

Tell me who is the body responsible for re-purposing ‘Caucasian’ in this way.

Agha Talal - So are you saying that we should not classify humans into races ?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm asking you to publicly identify the specific institutional body that is responsible for re-purposing the term ‘Caucasian’ to describe cranial & skeletal morphology of certain specific groups in Africa.

Agha Talal - The term Caucasian was coined by the German historian Christoph Meiners and later used by Johann Blumenbach along with Georges Cuvier to refer to a specific type of Cranial morphology. Initially he used skin color as a criteria for classification but he later abandoned it after he noticed that fair skinned people could acquire a tan and become brown skinned. Therefore they eventually used cranial measurements and skeletal morphology as their criteria.

It was in 1885 that the Caucasian taxon was sub divided into three sub races; Aryans, Semites and Hamites. Hamites included and still includes Afroasiatic people native to North Africa. Hamites also intermarried with other native African tribes of the time and gave rise to ethnic groups such as the Masai, Bantu etc. and so you will find Hamites who are black skinned.

Muhammad Rasheed - Where does the “technical” aspect come in, Agha?

Fight for the Greatest Love of All

Tyreese Jackson - Is it weird for me, as a black man, to despise black women?

Toni Colley-Lee - Historically, it was planned that way and apparently you have bought into the hype. Reeducate yourself as to the reasons and see if that helps with the emotions. I’d start with Dr. Joel Williamson’s book The Crucible of Race. Good luck with your journey of discovery.

Muhammad Rasheed - As Toni Colley-Lee pointed out, this attitude has been normalized in our socially-damaged, fundamentally racist society. One of the traits of such a society is an attack on the Black Family, which includes the following symptoms:

  1. The Black American male dates outside of his ethnic group more than any other demographic.
  2. The Black American woman is the most disrespected figure in the world.

Neither of these items are accidental, nor are they coincidental. I think it's brave that you asked such a question publicly, Tyreese, and I choose to consider that a cry for help. It is absolutely very weird to hate the child-bearing member of your own ethnic group, and it was indoctrinated into you by an evil outside force that hates both the Black male and the Black female. It's not your fault that you feel this way, but it will be your fault to not seek to reverse the psychological damage that your cry for help proves you are aware of.

"It's not only your right to be free, but it's your DUTY to be free." ~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Please learn more about the history of Black/White racial relationships in America to aid you in pinpointing what is wrong. In addition to Toni's book recommendation, please peruse the reading list below to help further your journey towards wholeness.

I’ll begin my book list by showing you what right looks like. Tera Hunter reveals within her ‘Bound in Wedlock’ book that during the worst time period in the nation’s history, the Black man did any and everything he could to make sure his woman knew that he loved her, and would do everything in his power to make sure she knew that she was wanted by HIM. Conspicuously the evidence displayed loudly in Hunter’s book contradicts the oft-repeated nonsense spewed from the non-discerning filth holes of those who are fond of proclaiming that the modern breakup of the Black Family began during slavery. This book proves that the facts are nothing like that, but instead show that the rock solid Black Family not only remained intact during the brutality of the middle passage, it was also a vital tool that got Blacks through the generations-long psychological terror assault of America’s ‘peculiar’ version of chattel slavery. It didn’t stop there either, but it helped carry us through the jim crow era, actually making us stronger together as interconnected families and as a community. These dupes, agents, and fiends want you to believe it happened during slavery because – if you are under the impression that the diabolical programming was hoary with age – it may make you believe it is hopeless to fight it. Meanwhile this assault on the Black Family is no older than the toxic ‘Integration Era’ which is barely 50 yrs old.

The illusion of “progress” is killing you; the indoctrination of it is destroying you from within, as the heart-breaking neuroses of your cry-for-help question demonstrates. Remember that during jim crow, even the false charge of you whistling at a white woman would be enough to incite a furious mob of average White people to lynch you. Today they allow you to marry white women. This isn’t social progress at all, but a more efficient domestic terrorism. Your dedicated enemy discovered that seeing you publicly hold hands with beckie is far more damaging to the Black Family than the same audience watching you dangle from the tree. The latter brought the Black Family closer together and made you powerful, while the former resulted in this question I’m answering here.

"But we can't control LOVE!"

"But you can't help who you fall in LOVE with!"

Sure you can. Don't be silly. You fall in love with the people in the circles you find yourself in. The 'Integration Era' is marked with the abandonment of Black Business and the Black Community; with the growing Black middle class rushing to enter the White "mainstream" as a permanent support class within his system. Another mark of the 'Integration Era' is the "Token Black" as you now find yourself the only Black face within a sea of White people (or within a sea of artificially hand-picked, fake "diversity" as the office is guided to become full of plastic dolls, some with brown faces). You are continuously encouraged to spend all of your time with beckie while you are equally encouraged to help your enemy malign and degrade your own woman. So clearly this "you can't help who you fall in love with" tripe is a blatant lie.

It's more profitable for him to train his racist staff to tolerate your physical presence (while admonishing you for displaying any non-white cultural/racial identity traits like natural hair), than it is to allow you to grow wealthy by circulating your money 16x within the Black community before he sees it. It's more profitable for him if he allows your best and brightest to use your talents & skills to support the White community, than for him to directly compete with you as a powerful independent entity. So the best way for him to redirect your Black Power for his usage is to destroy the Black Family, give the Black male all the beckies you can handle, and assimilate you into the Whiteness Cube like the Borg.

Step one in reversing this evil program is education... KNOW THY SELF!

Bound in Wedlock:
Slave and Free Black Marriage in the Nineteenth Century

by Tera W. Hunter

The Strange Career of Jim Crow
by C. Vann Woodward

The New Jim Crow:
Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

by Michelle Alexander

Black Rights/White Wrongs:
The Critique of Racial Liberalism
(Transgressing Boundaries: Studies in Black Politics and Black Communities)

by Charles W. Mills

Stamped from the Beginning:
The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America

by Ibram X. Kendi

Monday, July 17, 2017

The Mayweather versus McGregor Fight

Muhammad Rasheed - Here's my opinion of the upcoming super crossover event:
  1. The Great White Hope
    McGregor is the latest in a long line of ‘Great White Hopes.’ That’s why his rise to popularity in the UFC spurred the White combat sport fans to speculate about him being able to take down the African-American Floyd Mayweather, Jr., who infuriated them for daring to match Marciano’s 49–0 record.
  2. Tale of the Tape
    The raw stat numbers predict a Floyd Mayweather, Jr. win 99.99% of the time. What do we know?

    a) - Floyd is a boxing prodigy who's been trained in the sport since he was a small child, similar to Tiger Woods' upbringing except Floyd had TWO master-level boxing close relatives training him (in two OPPOSING boxing styles!) instead of Tiger's one.
    b) - McGregor has only ever dabbled a bit in amateur boxing as a lad, and carried none of those skills over with him when he entered the MMA world. In training for this match with the undefeated, pound-for-pound world champion Floyd Mayweather, Jr., he's literally starting all over from scratch.
    c) - Despite the skewed opinions of the casuals, McGregor is only the aggressor on the mic. In the octagon, he's actually a counter-puncher similar to Floyd, and baits/allows you to make a move so he can throw a shot behind it. McGregor will never out counter-punch Floyd.
    d) - If his corner actually trains him into being the aggressor, and actually has him pressing forward to pressure Floyd, then McGregor will only mimic the style that 100% favors Floyd's core defensive style. In such a case, you may realistically see a repeat of the Mayweather vs Hatton fight, except condensed into less than a minute long.
    e) - In some of his fights against notoriously powerful, but relatively inexperienced opponents with huge punching power (like Canelo specifically), Floyd has shocked the fight fans by actually staying in the pocket and mixing it up with them. He did this after a brief feeling out stage to see if the other fighter was fast/good enough to penetrate his defense and score with any reliability to concern Floyd. After satisfying himself that he was still well ahead of his opponent's skill level, he took more ‘risks’ and actually stayed within range to deliver his unnervingly accurate right hand leads over and over again. McGregor's rudimentary level boxing skills will not be a threat to Floyd in any way, and the pound-for-pound champ will probably be able to assess exactly how McGregor will match up just by looking at his fighting stance and how his hands are being held alone. McGregor will NOT be able to keep Floyd from hitting him at will, while the famous shoulder-roll move all by itself would frustrate McGregor, that is IF Floyd even allowed him to have an offense.
  3. A Puncher’s Chance
    Even though the ‘Tale of the Tape’ predicts a horrendously humiliating beating for McGregor at the hands of the pound-for-pound boxing champ, boxing is exciting because you can’t 100% predict what will happen; if the stats were THAT accurate, then there wouldn’t be any Vegas gambling odds. McGregor is in great shape, is half Floyd’s age, is very confident, and could get to be the single luckiest human being on earth for just that brief amount of time he needs to be. Fights always have that li’l tinge of the unknown that makes them very exciting. You just never know.
  4. Let’s Get It Over With Already
    I really don’t care about the little fight promo tour. I’m tired of the talking; if I could fast-forward to the main event then I definitely would. A big part of why I feel that way is because I know that Floyd isn’t a match for the quick-witted McGregor on the mic (who probably has a little stand-up comedy talent), so I’m not interested in seeing the champ get bested in that way. All I’m interested in is celebrating Floyd’s new 50–0 (final!) retirement record. The other reason why I want to hurry and get this thing over with, is because I’m sick and tired of the retarded, uninformed opinions of the casual fans who somehow believe that the only two possible outcomes are Floyd getting knocked out, or going the 12 round distance with an opponent who learned how to box YESTERDAY!!! wtf…?!
  5. Kellerman’s Prediction
    Expert boxing analyst and long-time fight fan Max Kellerman is all about the ‘Tale of the Tape’ stats, and predicts that horrendously humiliating beating for McGregor. I want Kellerman to be 100% correct with every fiber in my soul. I want Floyd to beat the crap out of McGregor for the first half of round one, and then knock him out for an incredibly embarrassing stumble-around-the-ring before he falls to the canvass in a red-faced, swollen, lumpy-headed, bloody heap after one more good, definitive 3-shot combo from Floyd. Then I want Floyd to run across the ring, fall to his knees, and act like he’s giving thanks to God for a hard won victory like it was the hardest fight of his life, with fake crying, etc.
  6. McGregor Earned this Super-Fight
    I disagree with the butthurt complaints of all the boxing purists (Dela Hoya, Teddy Atlas, etc.) who’ve whined about whether McGregor has earned this shot at Mayweather’s crown since this will be his first professional boxing match. No matter how I feel about totally wanting this latest Irish ‘Great White Hope’ to get demolished on 26 Aug, I cannot deny that McGregor has worked extremely hard in his chosen profession, and rose to the top into the arms of his well-earned glory. He did what he had to do to reach the top of his personal game, and he has reaped the rewards of it. He’s received the respect (and dollars) of the racist White fans who pin all their ‘Great White Hope’ dreams on him, of Floyd who has decided to take him seriously as the threat he pretends to be, of the media who are more than happy to ride the hype machine, and of the UFC and boxing suits who helped Floyd make the fight happen. It doesn’t matter whether the event will actually be competitive or not, what matters is that McGregor performed the way he needed to perform to capture the attention of the public to become as rich and famous as he dreamed of becoming. In that sense alone, he has definitely earned all of this money, as well as his little asterix-footnote in combat sport history.
  7. “Will this be Good for Boxing?”
    This is actually a dumb question. Casual fan outsiders who ask this seem to be under the impression that the only boxing matches that happen are the ones they hear about, and of course that's ridiculous. This thing doesn't have anything to do with "boxing." There's "boxing matches" that happen all the time, and then there are the "big events" that happen a whole lot less frequently. When they DO happen – Johnson vs Jeffries, Tunney vs Dempsey II, Ali vs Frazier I, that time when Felix Trinidad was trying to beat up the top dog in EVERY weight division, Jones vs Tarver II, Mayweather vs Pacquiao – then casual fans show up to hang out at the bar and eat Cheetoes® and pizza and it's a party, and they rarely even know what they are looking at. This question is stupid because if there isn’t an over-hyped PARTY around the match then the casuals are NOT GOING TO WATCH IT! Casual fans have never enjoyed boxing. Ever. They just show up for the event, and the lights, and pray that there's an ignorant, throw-caution-to-the-wind slug match. If it's a technical chess match of high-level skill then they actually get mad(!), so who cares what the casuals think? The "sport" isn't for them anyway. If you ask a casual what is the purpose of the ‘jab,’ they can’t tell you. So how is the opinion of someone like that going to be good for boxing? That's why Butterbean's 'Toughman Competition' show was invented, and as soon as those guys started actually learning how to REALLY fight so they’d have a better chance at winning the prize money, the casuals got bored and stopped watching that, too (then they promptly switched to ‘drunken hobo fights’ on YouTube where their REAL interests lie). Even in the UFC, the casuals hate really technical, high-level skilled matches, and just want to see the flash and gore (‘ground-n-pound’). The ‘casual fan’ is the very definition of the ‘fair weather friend.’ What prevents him from upgrading into true fandom? Why it is no less than an appreciation for the body of training, skills, rules, and fight strategies that make boxing what it is! The casual fan hates everything that enabled the talented and superbly-trained Floyd to accomplish what he has accomplished, but they sure enjoy showing up for the big event parties. lol It’s an insult to refer to them as “fans” at all! So you think that getting these folk to show up for the party – that they use to project their emotional fantasies about what they imagine boxing should be about – is actually good for the sport that they actually have zero interest in otherwise. GTFOOH!

    Sports don't suffer or grow at the whims of the people who really don't care what they are looking at, and the opinions of the casual fans are literally garbage. All they are good for is when the marketing department manipulates them into buying tickets for the next event. I guarantee the Mayweather vs McGregor *EVENT!* is the best thing that ever happened to the casual boxing/MMA fans since the hype machine leading up to the Jack Johnson versus Jim Jeffries “fight”, because they don't really care about the skills involved and obviously neither does the event itself.  Trust that this is 100% all emotion-driven fantasy for the casual fans, and the ‘sport of boxing’ will be just fine with or without it.
Gonçalo Megos - Why did you make this about race? Absurd dude

Muhammad Rasheed - It was already about race, son. I merely commented on it.

Mario Kurac - I’m not sure about this race thing. I know as much white people supporting Mayweather than black people supporting Mcgregor.

Muhammad Rasheed - How do you know?

Mario Kurac - Because I see it in my social circle. All my white friends hate Mcgregor because he is an arrogant prick, and prefer Mayweather because at least he has results to back up his mouth.And I have tons of black friends who like Mcgregor because they like the way he doesn’t care what anyone think of him ….

Muhammad Rasheed - So within your own social circle, you estimate that the white/black ratio is about even, so you think that translates across the entire national population of fight fans?

Jim Yelly - Excellent take on the fight, I agree with everything you said except to white hope part. I don't think that is what is going on.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol The “Great White Hope” dream is never late, Jim, and it defines all the unreasonable hate Floyd has received. Racism is 70% of the boxing industry.

Jim Yelly - I would argue that much more of the hate is due to “Money” Mayweather’s lack of humility and how boring non boxers find his fights.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meanwhile, Whites adore McGregor for his vulgar lack of humility, while Floyd has been notably calmer, more thoughtful, and more humble in his public appearances since his “Pretty Boy” days, and especially compared to Conor’s performance now. This of course showcases the obscene double standard and hypocrisy that crawls along the surface film of the very racism you seek to deny here.

btw, the “Money” moniker reflects a lack of creativity more than any perceived lack of humility, since his former slave owner/handler refused to allow him to take the “Pretty Boy” brand with him when Floyd broke loose from the contract.

Hey, don’t you think it odd that Floyd flaunting his wealth generates so much pure hatred from Whites considering that it is the White race that controls the vast majority of wealth and resources in Western society? Why do you think that is? Why do you think Floyd’s textbook American Dream success story actually makes his fellow Americans *HATE* him this way? Tell me.

Rudi De Villiers - lots of white hate this and that. justify it. some very broad brush strokes you have there. perhaps you should not throw stones from a glass house

Muhammad Rasheed - There happens to be a lot of "Whites hate this and that" going on in the world. Please control your people. Thanks, buddy.

Rudi De Villiers - go McGregor!!!!

Muhammad Rasheed - Do you think witnessing yet another over-confident Great White Hope get humiliated will control your people? Curious.

Rudi De Villiers - no... actually I was rooting for Floyd as I am a boxing fan. the whole fight actually stinks as it is insulting for the sport of boxing and imho just another showboating money draw fight with antics closer related to WWE than boxing. I weighed up skill. you made it about race.

Muhammad Rasheed - It was always about race. I merely pointed it out.

Why do Whites behave as if not mentioning “racism” in conversation magically means they don’t afflict it upon the world? This is literally as immature as when a child thinks he’s invisible by closing his eyes. Please control your people. Thanks, buddy.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Notes While Observing: The Descendants of Yakub

Muhammad Rasheed - One of the mythical tales that W.D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad would tell the initiates into The Lost-Found Nation of Islam in the Wilderness of North America organization, was the story of Yakub, the big-headed scientist. In ancient times past, when the Black Man was at the height of his powers and ruled the world using wisdom, righteousness, and his mastery of the Sciences, Yakub was the renegade trickster figure. Within the tale it was he, with his unusually large head and a penchant for equally large wrong-headed mischief, who created  the albinoid White race in his laboratories.  If you're even a little familiar with the general ideology of Elijah's Nation of Islam, then you know it was all down hill from there. Created from the beginning to be literal 'devils,' the Caucasian ethnic groups would eventually spread around the world their violent and exploitative savagery under the banner of White Supremacy.

Taught to the 'lost' Black American during the worst of jim crow's lynching era, it shouldn't be too difficult to see why such a tale would make 100% sense to the incoming recruits. And as referenced within other Notes of this series, equally attractive was the fact that the European's Western Civilization was built upon the lore inherited from the previous Black Civilization, that the Whites have taken pains to cover up as part of their justification for chattel slavery and jim crow subjugation of Blacks.

For myself, growing up in a society that insisted the Black race was nothing, the discovery that it was the Blacks that taught Whites all their plagiarized lore was always a source of bittersweet pride. Far from thinking that the Yakub story was literally true, I did recognize that the NOI founders painted the mythical figure as a bad guy based solely on how Whites have behaved towards their ethnic rivals. In real life, I casually assumed that the groups of civilizing Blacks that so generously taught the Europeans the Sciences and civilizing arts thoughout the ages did so from a purely altruistic motive, and had no idea that Whites would use their new powers to spread their death cult around the globe.

But what if they did?  What if the ancient Blacks DID know?

What if that's exactly what they wanted? What if -- just as Fard and Elijah had empowered the early 20th century Blacks with their NOI ideologies -- the ancient Black missionary scientists previously had empowered the savage, cave dwelling Whites with the indoctrination that taught them to conquer the world? What if civilizing figures like the Blackamoors, and before them the ancient Blacks that so enamored the Greeks that they worshiped the Africans as man-gods, were playing some kind of grand chess game, and had deliberately weaponized the Europeans against an ancient rival-enemy? In other words, Yakub represented the ultimate secret society of an ages old group of powerful Blacks who are playing war games with another mysterious group?

With this concept whipping back and forth in my mind like a fish struggling in a net, I compared it to the actions and attitudes of the modern, mainstream group of African-Americans.

The suspicious rhetoric, decisions and actions of this dominant Black Tribe that holds themselves up as the 'face' of the Black American ethnic group don't exactly align with the stated goals of our slain Black leaders in the struggle. In fact, they often give the impression that they hate the goals of those leaders (and the modern day acolytes of those leaders), even while pretending to celebrate them during Black History Month.  At every step we turn, it is this tribe that tells us not to "rock the boat," not to demand Reparations, not to come together in a self-empowered community...

...basically they always talk us down from doing exactly what we need to do to succeed as a special interest group.

It reminds me of that not-so-cryptic Zora Neale Hurston quote: “All my skinfolk ain't kinfolk." In order to be truly free, socio-economically successful, economically-included, full citizens of this nation we helped build, the African-American is going to have to do so without the help of the dominant tribe that pretends to speak for all of us.  This one that abandoned his communities to 'integrate' into the White's as a permanent support class.  This one that partnered with the predatory Whites against his own poor.  This is the Black tribe that the Whites drew from when they needed assassins for our leaders. In order to be free, it's clear we're going to have to go around or through these agents who are resentful that they were born wearing our Black face.

The modern dominant Black tribe, like the ancient Yakubian missionaries before them, remain over-eager to turn all their Black Excellence talents, skills, and intellect over to the Whites for their use. For some reason they seem to fear and hate the idea of using their power to build up themselves.

The dominant tribe of Black Americans are the 'mainstream' face of the African-American ethnic group, and they are the ones that sold us all out after the civil rights era, and sabotaged the noble efforts of the 1972 Black Political Convention in Gary, IN. It is they who sacrificed the Black poor and our group independence and freedoms, so that they could share in a piece of the hoarded spoils amassed by the White oppressor.

The dominant Black tribe is the one that admonishes us for being 'divisive' when we call Whites out on their evils, and who fears 'rocking the boat' because Whites may fire them from the "good jobs" as a permanent support class. It's the tribe that demonstrably hates the idea of "Black-owned" anything, and will conspicuously withhold support from it gleefully hoping it will fail. That's the tribe that partners with Whites in calling the poor 'lazy & wasteful' while blaming them for their plight. It's the tribe that moans whenever Whites kill a random Black because they hate the feeling of cowardice at the certainty that they will do nothing about it. The dominant Black tribe is the one that agreed, in exchange for the signing of the Civil Rights Act, that they would look away as our leaders were assassinated, and promised they would not demand Reparations and/or Economic Inclusion during the toxic & coonish 'Integration Era' that was baptized in the slain leaders' blood.

Why? Who ARE you that you so continuously betray your own? You cannot blame the mindset on American slavery, because you were ALWAYS like that!  Who are you really?

Keep a Healthy Gut!

Muhammad Rasheed - I love watching big summer blockbuster films on the silver screen, especially the superhero ones. That's the format they were made for! One of the best parts of getting to watch a movie in the theater to me is the trailers. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see a lot of trailers lately since I usually watch movies in the AFES theater, and they rarely show trailers before the main feature, which sucks.  I saw Spider-man: Homecoming recently, and to my surprise there was ONE trailer that played.  Was it Black Panther? No. Was it the one for Thor? No. What about the next Avengers where Thanos shows up? No.

It was the trailer for Malcolm D. Lee's Girls Trip movie, starring Jada Pinkett Smith and Queen Latifah. It looked silly and fun, but it was also very raunchy and over-the-top just in the trailer alone. At first I was trippin' like "Really? You put this in front of a kid's movie?" but then I remembered I was in AFES, so there weren't going to be any kids in there anyway. I don't know what trailers they are showing in front of it in the regular theaters. While I was still trippin' though, the trailer ended with the line: "Girl, you can't get no infection in your booty hole. It's a booty hole!" which should give some idea of the levels of raunch I was trippin' over (Okay, I know you've seen worse. Whatever.).

So, later as I was thinking about just how scientifically WRONG that final line was, I wondered if they would have bothered to address it in the story so people would know that it wasn't true.  You absolutely can get infection in the rectum, and for all the same reasons you get infection normally. But what if they just played it up for laughs, and left it alone? Using a surface-level, uninformed logic it may seem to make sense... the rectal tract is full of feces, so the rectal tract should be 100% impervious to feces-derived infection, right?

Wrong.  10,000% Wrong-O.

The tissue lining of the rectal walls is very sensitive, and it tears easily.  Any type of abusive rough-handling will tear a wound in that lining, which absolutely will become infected when the feces gets in there. This actually happens often enough to be tracked as a pattern of different related rectal and colon diseases grouped together under the "syndrome" umbrella. They sometimes refer to it as "gay bowel syndrome," but there's nothing happy or gleeful about it. It's VERY serious, and people die from it all the time. It's odd how people don't really talk about it anymore since the 1970s though since the diseases in the syndrome are more prevalent than EVER. Curious.

Anyway, to help lessen the chance of you ripping through your own rectal lining, make sure you bulk load a lot of soluble and insoluble fiber in your diet, and drink plenty of water.  Don't be shy about eating regular organic yogurt either, as this will keep 'good' bacteria and enzymes cooking in there, too.  Do this regularly and your bowels should stay consistently soft and unlikely to rough up your 'booty hole.'

You may consider this Your Friendly Neighborhood Public Service Announcement.  You're welcome.