April 9, 2025 • 81 mins
Abdullah Bay captivates with an illuminating exploration of how racial and color classifications have been used to dehumanize people by stripping away their national characteristics and birthright. Tracing the origins of our modern racial paradigm to François Bernier's 1684 publication "New Division of Earth," Bay meticulously deconstructs how these non-nationality classifications (black, white, red, brown, yellow) were deliberately constructed as a social engineering tool.
Drawing from his 33 years of study in etymology and semantics, Bay demonstrates how language serves as both the mechanism of oppression and the key to liberation. His brilliant analysis of international legal terminology reveals why using words like "subjugation" rather than merely "unlawful" invokes entirely different frameworks of understanding. The term "subjugation" specifically recognizes that an entire nation of people has been placed under the control of another state - acknowledging both nationhood and the international legal protections that should apply.
Perhaps most fascinating is Bay's explanation of operative conditioning - the Pavlovian response where people automatically identify with color classifications without critical thinking. He shares powerful anecdotes from teaching nationality to over 5,000 students, including moments when children would grab his arm and say, "Look at you, you're black," demonstrating how deeply ingrained these paradigms become without proper education in grammar and critical analysis.
The conversation takes a stunning turn when Bay reveals connections between the privatization of prisons in the mid-1980s, states' contractual obligations to keep prisons full, and a 1990 meeting targeting rap music for criminalization - a deliberate cultural engineering strategy that continues to impact communities today.
Welcome to the Fit, Healthy and Happy Podcast hosted by Josh and Kyle from Colossus...
Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify
NYPTALKSHOW EP.1 HOSTED BY RON BROWNLMT & MIKEY FEVER
#consciousness #spirituality #meditation #love #awakening #spiritualawakening #spiritual #mindfulness #healing #energy #selflove #yoga #enlightenment #wisdom #peace #lawofattraction #inspiration #life #awareness #soul #motivation #universe #lightworker #nature #quotes #happiness #believe #higherconsciousness #art #gratitude #hiphop #rap #music #rapper #trap #beats #hiphopmusic #newmusic #producer #artist #love #dance #rapmusic #rnb #dj #art #hiphopculture #explorepage #soundcloud #spotify #rappers #freestyle #musicproducer #youtube #bhfyp #beatmaker #instagood #s #musician #follow
#newyork #nyc #newyorkcity #usa #losangeles #miami #love #brooklyn #california #manhattan #ny #fashion #london #music #atlanta #photography #hiphop #art #newjersey #florida #instagram #instagood #chicago #canada #texas #paris #travel #longisland #rap #explorepage
#healthy #fitness #healthylifestyle #healthyfood #health #food #fit #motivation #workout #lifestyle #gym #love #vegan #weightloss #foodie #fitnessmotivation #instagood #nutrition #training #foodporn #instafood #fitfam #diet #bodybuilding #yummy #healthyliving #exercise #healthyeating #wellness #delicious
#currentevents #currentaffairs #news #gk #politics #upsc #ssc #knowledge #podcast #gujarati #ias #discussion #gpsc #debate #generalknowledge #instagram #currentaffairsquiz #politicalsc
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
all right, all right, all right.
What's going on?
What's going on?
Everybody out there is ronbrown lmt, the people's fitness
professional, my co-host.
He is in route right now.
In route right now.
He is on his way.
Thank you guys for tuning in.
We got the brother Abdullah Bayin the building Round of
(00:40):
applause.
Thanks to everybody in the chatright now.
Two people in the chat.
I really appreciate those twopeople.
Make yourself known.
If that's a bin, let me know.
If that's awareness daily, letme know.
Talk to me in the chat.
Talk to me in the chat.
Anyway, let's talk.
Let's talk.
Brother Abdullah Abdullah Bay,we're talking about the
(01:02):
dehumanization through race andcolor.
And if you could break downyour title, your title, explain
your title before we go into it.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Before I speak, my name no, your title.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
How Race and Color have Been Used.
Oh, my title.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
You know what I got you?
Well, that is, that'll be doneduring the course.
But, yeah, so thedehumanization of through race
and color, you know, I'm gonna,I'm going to uh explain what
that is and uh explain the uh,the origin of race, the
(01:46):
constructive meaning that's beengiven to the word color, and
how this false thought paradigmhas dehumanized us as a people.
Meaning has actually removedour national characteristics.
(02:07):
So I'm going to definitely getinto that in more detail as we
go through the podcast.
Okay.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
So now I want to let's let's talk about it a
little bit.
A little brief history.
I met the brother years back, Ithink it was like 0607.
Uh, he was from what I remember.
He was with taj and ross, yes,and uh, you know you, you got
like a few books.
In fact, I have you some ofyour material downstairs.
(02:38):
I wish I would have brought itup, man, damn.
Uh, very helpful etymology book.
He's the author of a few booksand also classes.
I've taken classes with himthere, building about etymology
and breaking down words.
More history, more science whatelse, I think?
Speaker 2 (03:03):
the astronomy or what they call what they was.
People call Masonic symbols OK,actually measurement tools and
devices, but I actuallyexplained the astronomical use
application of them.
That's in my book the MasonicCompens Square and the
(03:24):
Connection to Measurement andTimekeeping, Nice.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Now also, I think you were in attendance when we did
with me and Knowledge Eternalfrom the Clock of Destiny, also
5% Nation, when we had a unityrally between it was Roz there,
Nakeem Bay there, Jelani there.
It was Roz there, Nakeem Baythere, Jelani there, man C
(03:47):
Ferguson, Ill from the KirkmanBay faction, and I think you
were in attendance there.
We were in a Masonic Lodge.
We went upstairs yeah, I wasthere.
Yeah, that was way back in theday.
That was yes.
Yeah, that was way back in theday.
Yeah, that was yes.
Yeah, that was way back.
But now fast forward 2025, I'mstill doing the work, but now
(04:12):
I'm doing the work virtually,You're still doing the work.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
brother, greatly appreciate your steadfastness,
your commitment and yourhumanitarian love that you have
for our people.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Indeed, same same to you, brother.
Really appreciate you.
Now let's just talk about yourhistory a little bit, and then
we'll go more into the podcast.
So now, from what I remember,you're from Philadelphia.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Camden.
I live in Philly, but I'm bornand raised across the bridge.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Camden.
Ok, you were born and raised inCamden and you moved to
Philadelphia.
And what was your upbringinglike?
How did you end up in moralscience in that that world?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, I was always curious about, Well, I was
always curious about, you know,where words came from.
You know, I remember becauseI've been studying etymology
since 1998, and I recall, when Iwas seven, eight years old, you
(05:21):
know, staring out my window andjust wondering, and I remember
asking this question to myselfwhere did the word tree come
from?
And it's just so fitting that Istudy etymology now and I'm
seven, eight years old, I'masking the question to myself
(05:43):
where did the word tree comefrom?
Why is it called a tree?
Years old, I'm asking thequestion to myself where did the
word tree come from?
You know, why is it called atree?
You know, and I would you know?
And I'm like, wow, so I was, Iwas always curious and, um, one
of my favorite um subjects wasEnglish.
You know, when I was in school,I was a a decent speller.
I used to win, I used to placehigh in.
(06:03):
I was in school, I was a decentspeller, I used to place high
in spelling bees in school, andso that was.
I was among Europeans, a lot ofEuropeans, when I from ninth
grade, from ninth grade all theway to graduate school, Because
(06:24):
I went to a predominantlyEuropean high school.
I was bused.
I took the bus to go to school.
I didn't go to high school inCamden, I went to Canada
Catholic Cherry Hill High School.
The reason why it's calledCanada Catholic Cherry Hill High
School is because it was inCamden.
It burned down and theyrelocated to Cherry Hill High
(06:45):
School.
Because it was in Camden and itburned down and they relocated
to Cherry Hill.
So I was among a lot ofEuropeans from high school, from
ninth grade to graduate school.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Okay, so how was that experience Going to school with
a lot of Europeans wherethere's racism there, and maybe
that sparked your interest tothink.
You know, delve more into likehistory and things like that.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Yeah, what I?
What I observed with Is thatthe Europeans kept to themselves
and the more is classified asblack kept to themselves.
It was that.
So we hung out.
Moors classified as black hungout.
It was about 90% European and10% more classified as
(07:43):
nickel-colored black.
So it wasn't where it was.
99 10% more classified asnickel colored black Right.
Okay, yeah, so it wasn't where.
It was 99.5% European, it waslike about 10% of us and 90% of
them.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Got you.
So there was some kind ofracial tension at points.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
At times you had, you had more as classified as
Puerto Ricans, more classifiedas Blacks they were at that time
they would say race riots, youknow, there would be Blacks
against Puerto Ricans, right,you know, type thing.
That went on too, because therewas a few years, like I said,
(08:24):
it was like I said it was like Isaid the 10% was more
classified as Black and PuertoRicans and the 90% was Europeans
Got you, got you and aroundthat time we're talking around
what time period that?
was 19,.
That was 80, 83 to 87.
(08:47):
83 to 87.
I was in high school.
College from 87 to 91.
Graduate school from 91 to 93.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
What college did you go to?
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Glassboro State College, now Rowan University.
Then I went on to the grad gradrecords university, graduate
school, social work in newBrunswick, New.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Jersey, nice, okay.
So uh, uh, what did you majorin?
Speaker 2 (09:17):
I sociology and then I got a master's in social work
at the graduate school ofsociology Nice that's peace.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
So you know I always ask this question because you
know I don't want to sound likea broken record, but you know, I
know, like me personally, I wasimpacted by the crack era in
the 80s and the 90s.
So did you experience that partof history and you know that
era?
Speaker 2 (09:46):
not, so I was.
My mother was strict and so shewas on curfew.
I remember I gotta tell thisstory.
Don't laugh at me.
It's true.
So don't laugh.
(10:07):
Y'all don't laugh because mystudents laughed at me.
You know what I mean.
My students would laugh when Isubstituted.
They would laugh because theycould be out in ninth grade and
they can hang out at 12 o'clockand 1 o'clock in the morning.
I'm like whoa what?
My curfew my 12th, my seniorand they can hang out at 12
o'clock and 1 o'clock in themorning.
I'm like whoa, what.
My curfew my senior in highschool was 10 o'clock.
(10:37):
My senior I'm 18 years oldSenior in high school Curfew was
10 o'clock.
My mom did not play.
I recall.
I'll never forget this.
I was 10 minutes late.
(10:59):
I wish I was lying.
I wish I was lying.
I wish I was lying.
I was 10 minutes late.
Open the door, I got the key.
My mom is standing at the doorwith a belt wow 18 years old,
(11:28):
senior in high school and justabout to graduate from high
school.
Two months or three months fromgraduation, I was dating a
sister and I was late, 10 monthslate.
My mom did not play, and youknow what I appreciate that, I
(11:48):
appreciate that I do Right, shedidn't get it.
Yes, I wanted to.
I had to, you know, wanted toconvey that story.
It's a true story.
My brother and sister I am notmaking that up- Wow Shouts out
to mom.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Thank you, mom, for doing that.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Yeah, she said she transitioned in 2000, december
2018.
Absolutely, my mom, yeah, andmy stepfather as well, but they
were, yeah.
That's how that epitomizes howI was raised.
Yeah, I was yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
So this discipline led you to study.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yes, oh, absolutely yes, I would.
I would say so Definitely.
Being very disciplined, beingvery focused, that was I was
reared that way, absolutely Fromearly age.
You know, I didn't becomedisciplined and focused when I
became an adult.
(12:47):
That was I was raised to bethat Nice, nice.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
So.
So, now that we have, oh peace,peace, yasro Bay, peace to you,
peace and respect.
Just to let everyone know, Iknow you guys see me, you know,
hit your the ad, the friend.
I'm trying to friend you guyson Facebook.
So that's me, that's me, that'sme.
So now let's go into it, nowthat we have a brief history.
(13:14):
I'm sure you know they want tohear what you have to say about
the dehumanization through raceand color.
However, you want to set thatoff race and color.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
However, however, you want to set that off.
Yes, I want to set off by byasking it, by asking a question
and out there I'll answer.
How do we fight against racism?
And we often people you know,we'll often hear that you have.
You have people you know moreclassified as nigga color, black
, african-american continue topush that.
You know people you know moreclassified as nigger-colored,
black African-American continueto push that.
You know we gotta fight againstracism.
(13:51):
You know what I mean.
You know never give up thefight against racism.
You know what I mean.
So we gotta stand againstracism and that's been beaten in
us, you know.
Fight against racism.
And now, so you know how youfight against racism.
Oh, Teach the people the originof the paradigm.
(14:15):
This is dehumanizing paradigm.
Let's go.
So the fight against racism.
I want to, because I want totake this angle that get
(14:38):
people's attention.
The fight against racism.
We got to go to 1684.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
1684.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
1684.
1684.
Well, how can going to 1684going to help us fight against
racism?
Oh well, it'll give you.
You'll give you the origin ofthis paradigm, of the paradigm
(15:08):
New, the vision of the world.
France wabiner, his newdivision of the earth, whereby
he classified the human familyusing non-nationality,
(15:29):
non-pedigree, non-consequentious, non-ancestral words black,
white, red, brown and yellow.
Black, white, red, brown andyellow.
This is how you fight againstracism by teaching the people
(15:53):
the origin of the paradigm andhow the paradigm steals our
birthright, how it dehumanizesus.
So, through that socialengineering concept, beginning
(16:15):
with Francois Bonner, with thatstructure, and then continued
with and then further expandedby Johann Friedrich Blumenbach
and we.
This is that was so.
You have Colonnais with hisSystema Naturae and 12 editions
(16:42):
from 1713 to 1732.
Systema Naturae with 12 or 13editions, 1713 to 1732.
You have Johan he was a Swedishnaturalist Francois Pernier.
(17:02):
Francois Pernier was a Frenchcraniologist and he actually he
lived in, he lived in India orHindustan for nine years and he
studied Francois Bonner.
Going back to him, he studiedthe caste system, so he
(17:23):
developed the concept upon mystudied the caste system.
So he developed the concept bystudying the caste system of
India.
So he came and wrote the bookthe Invention of the Racial
Classification, and that's wherehe came up.
That's where he developed thatnew division of the earth in
(17:45):
1684.
This is how you fight againstracism.
I know it's a new for ourpeople because they could.
They lack the knowledge.
It's only because they lack theknowledge of the origin of the
paradigm.
They think it's real blackwhite.
They think it's real BlackWhite.
(18:07):
I remember when I was teachingand cammed in school and I was
substituting, there was a I'mgoing to say this there was a
more classified as nigger colorblack and he was from the.
(18:29):
He was, he was.
We had a guest be with theguest speaker and he was from
Rutgers University Department ofHuman Relations, Department of
Human Relations At RutgersUniversity, and I remember his
(18:50):
saying.
I was standing at the door, itwas the fifth grade class, he
was a guest speaker and I wasstanding in the back At the door
and I remember his sayingDuring the course of his
presentation it doesn't matterwhat you call yourself Black,
(19:12):
white, red, orange or purple,keep in mind Rutgers University,
no, no, I'm sorry, foreignrelations, I apologize, not
human rights.
Rutgers University, foreignrelations department.
I was heated man, I wassingeing inside.
(19:37):
You're from Rutgers UniversityForeign Relations Department and
you say to here's the sort yousay to the children it doesn't
matter what you call yourselfblack, white, red, orange or
(19:59):
purple and you've heard thisbefore, y'all heard this, this
ain't new, this is not new, thatloosely saying, and no matter
what you, who you are black,white, red, purple, orange See
that social engineering.
Yeah, see, the dehumanization isdone through social engineering
.
So with that social engineering, there's no thinking involved.
(20:24):
There's no thinking.
So people are not rationalizingit.
This is what's called operativeconditioning, pavlov's dog.
You think that they were justgoing to use that on animals?
That they're going to use that.
They use an animal for testing,to apply to humans.
(20:50):
That's not just for animals,though.
The operative conditioningwhere they use Pavlov's dog bell
, they ring a bell, he salivates, ring a bell, salivates, but
that was just the dog was justused for experimentation that
(21:12):
they applied for in traininghumans and animals.
So the operative conditioningof black, black, black, black
Look, what color are you?
Black?
There's no thinking.
Our people, they're notthinking, they're not
(21:32):
rationalizing.
It's training, it's operativeconditioning.
We're just conscious of it,that's conditioning, we're just
conscious of it, that's all.
We're just conscious.
So we can rationalize.
We can critically think aboutit.
There's no thinking at all.
I had students will walk up tome as I taught nationality to
(21:57):
over 5,000 students in a KansasCity public school.
I ran my big mouth.
I taught over 500 teachers,both Europeans and most
classified in the color, blackand classified Spanish teachers.
(22:19):
I ran my big mouth, I didn'tkeep quiet.
I was known for talking, I wasknown for teaching.
So students would ask, andteaching the students about
nationality and that of their,about nationality and that of
(22:39):
their Moorish nationality, andteaching that black's not a
nationality.
And then so, like I said,pavlov's dog.
Again, operative conditioningthere's no thinking.
What do you mean?
So I recall, students will walkup to me, to me, come out their
(23:00):
seats, grab my arm.
They would grab my arm, grab mywrist and hold my wrist to my
face.
Look at you, mr bay, look atyou, you're black.
Look at you.
Look at you.
Remember there's there's nothinking.
See, now you're chucklingbecause you are aware You're
(23:27):
thinking about it.
Once again, go back to Pavlov'sdog.
There's training, no thinking.
That's social engineering,exactly.
So it's like what do you mean?
We're not Black.
Look at you, look at you.
See, that that's conditioning.
(23:52):
So I got it.
So we.
That's a beautiful analogy rightthere.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
I read about that in Na pardon, in naeem akbar's book
breaking the psychologicalchains of slavery, when he spoke
about the pavlo um concept.
Absolutely, and that'ssomething that's true, because
you're trained basically out ofyour own natural element.
Thank you like cognitivedissonance, cognitive dissonance
, cognitive dissonance.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
Absolutely, that's exactly what it is.
Yeah, yep, cognitive dissonance.
So definitely dissonance.
So this is very strong.
So it's going to take.
It's going to take unity amongconscious moors, which doesn't
exist.
I'm going to get on.
I got you conscious't exist.
(24:38):
I'm going to.
I'm going to get on, I got youconscious moors, I'm going to
get on y'all.
I'm going to get on y'all.
Conscious moors, yes, I am, I'mgoing to get on y'all.
I can't get on unconsciousmoors because they don't know
Exactly.
So I got to get on consciousmoors with this, this unity,
with this unity trying to outdoeach other.
Come on now, 33 years now forme, 33 years of observation of
(25:07):
seeing conscious mores trying tooutdo each other, fighting each
other and bashing each otherand bashing each other.
I mean, what happened?
You hear me?
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Yep, I hear you now.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
I was trying.
I hit the.
I answered the call when Ididn't mean to.
I was trying to.
I hit the.
I hit the.
Hey, I hit the red instead of.
I hit the green instead of thered.
Yes, so we're going to need.
We got to work together.
You don't see that amongconscious mores.
(25:53):
You see, you know this, youknow trying to outdo each other
and who's better, and we got tomove away from that.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
I call it intellectual masturbation.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
It's intellectual masturbation.
Yes, there's a lot of thatamong conscious moors, man A lot
of that and I've seen that for33 years.
And we have to man A lot ofthat and I've seen that for 33
years.
And and I, I, you know, we, wegotta, we have to, we have to
work through that, you know, andI and I reason, I'm mentioning
that it ties into what I'msaying, because in order for us
(26:30):
to connect with unconsciousmores and teach them that, that,
because it's because it's sostrong that dehumanization, the
Francois Bonner's paradigm is soembedded, so ingrained, it's
going to take a united effortamong conscious moors.
(26:52):
You know, it's not just a fewof us, it's going to take what
we're working together andteaching, you know.
But yeah, somebody keep callingme, yeah, so let me continue.
(27:18):
Let me continue with the lesson.
So we have here Dr King.
Dr King said he had a dreamthat one day my four little
children will grow up and livein a world where they not be
judged by the color of theirskin but by the content of their
(27:43):
character.
I have a dream.
So his dream was be judged bythe content of that character
and not by the color of our skin.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
Right.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Are we judged by our complexion?
Really, really.
That's real Are we?
Are we being mistreated merelybecause of our complexion?
They hate us merely because ofour complexion.
(28:18):
They hate us merely because ofour complexion.
They hold us down merelybecause of complexion.
They shoot us down merelybecause of our complexion.
Meaning it's nothing else.
It has nothing to do withanything else.
It has nothing to do with thatstone in our land.
(28:39):
It has nothing to do withanything else.
It has nothing to do with thatstone in our land.
It has nothing to do with that.
They've buried our history.
It has only to do with thecomplexion of our skin.
Do they really believe that?
Do conscious Moors truly intheir hearts believe that?
Do conscious moors truly intheir hearts believe that?
(29:01):
I don't.
I don't think they believe thatthat's the party line.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
They fear your greatness.
I can tell you that.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Yeah, that's the, but I'm saying conscious moors.
I'm raising the question doconscious, do you think
conscious more I mean Iconscious more Do you think
unconscious mores classified asNegro colored, black,
african-american, okay, truly intheir hearts, believe that
(29:33):
there are mistreatment Is solelybecause of our complexion?
I don't, I don't think theybelieve that that's, that's,
that's the party line, that'sthat, that's that racism push
(29:53):
party line.
But I don't think they.
They can't exactly put theiryou know, they know something
that we don't know our history.
They do know that they don'tknow what the history is, but
they know that there's a lackingof our history, knowledge of
who we are, but that we're beingjudged by our complexion.
(30:19):
That is definitely amisdirection, a cover-up, a
disguise for the continuation ofour subjugation.
Let's look at Mariah Carey.
I'm going to give up, mariahCarey.
I'm going to give up.
Mariah Carey was on a show andshe was asked a question.
(30:43):
I'm going to let me go right toit now.
Mariah Carey was asked aquestion.
She was on a talk show and thehost asked her this question
what color are you?
Mariah's answer In this country, black, really.
(31:10):
She's answering.
Really, in this country, black,really.
My mother's Irish.
My mother is Irish, she is likethe queen of Ireland.
My father is black.
He grew up in Harlem and servedhis country.
His father's mother, mygrandmother, is Venezuelan.
(31:35):
So the word color, theetymology, mother is Venezuelan.
So the word color, theetymology, that means the true
meaning.
And the legal meaning of theword color means to hide and
conceal, disguise, fake,artificial, distinguished from
(32:00):
that which is real.
How did the word color gain itsconstructive meaning of
complexion, pigmentation, skintone, shade or hue?
And that there, pigmentation,skin tone, shade or hue.
(32:22):
And that there you have thislegal term people of color,
color, people color.
When someone looks like DonaldTrump, they don't associate with
that word color, they won'trelate that word color to
(32:44):
themselves.
No one will say Donald Trump isa man of color.
So is the constructive meaningcomplexion or a certain
complexion?
Is this constructive meaningfor the word color just merely
(33:08):
complexion or a certaincomplexion?
Because no one would say DonaldTrump is a man of color.
Once again, social engineering,social engineering.
I'm going to the socialengineering aspect now.
Let's go back.
We're going back to that.
Why don't people refer toDonald Trump as a man of color?
(33:31):
Because the constructivemeaning that has been applied to
the word color is of a certainpigmentation that looked like of
our pigmentation.
They won't relate to that, sothey'll say, donald Trump, don't
(33:56):
have a color.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Now what does that implicate in the in law?
What is the implications in lawor socially when you are
classified as a person of color?
Speaker 2 (34:15):
So what it does is?
It takes you out of theprotection of law, it's
dehumanizing, it affords you nointernational human rights
recognition and protection.
It so what it does.
(34:41):
It makes you dead in the eyesof the law, similar to Mottus
dead in the eyes of the law.
So if you're talking humanrights, you have to be what Of a
nation, one of whom has anationality, because a
(35:11):
nationality ties a people to anation state.
So it actually keeps us in asubjugated, dehumanizing state.
And I want to continue to usethe word subjugation.
I'm going to tell you why Idon't use the words loosely.
I don't just use words randomlyand loosely.
I'm using the word subjugationto invoke international law.
(35:33):
I won't say unlawful, why I'mgoing to explain why you will
not hear me say unlawful, whyI'm explaining why you will not
hear me say unlawful, becausesaying unlawful doesn't invoke
international law.
And I'm going to continue toexplain.
By using the word subjugation,not only am I invoking
(36:00):
international law, subjugationapplies to a nation of people
that's been subjugated byanother nation of people, by
another nation.
See.
So by using the wordsubjugation, hear me out, my
brothers and sisters please.
By using the word subjugation,hear me out, my brothers and
sisters, please.
(36:21):
By using the word subjugation,I am identifying our people as
belonging to a nation that'sbeen subjugated.
Let me give you an exampleHawaii, the native people of
Hawaii, united States.
Hawaii, the native people ofHawaii, united States invaded
(36:43):
Hawaii, the kingdom of Hawaii,in 1893.
That's called, that'ssubjugation, subjugation.
And then we're talkinginternational law.
Subjugation in internationallaw establishes a new title.
So we won't say I will not say,because I know international
(37:07):
law United States is violatingthe people, the native people of
Hawaii.
The United States is committingunlawful acts against the
native people of Hawaii.
The United States is committingunlawful acts against the
native people of Hawaii.
I will not use that language.
United States is subjugating.
(37:28):
It makes a difference Becausewhen you use the word
subjugation and invokesinternational law and that a
state is subjugating a state, astate United States is
subjugating a people, nativeIwaki, that belongs to a state,
(37:50):
king of Iwaki.
That's why I have to explainwhy I'm using words.
We're talking international lawhere.
So I won't say unconstitutional, I won't say unlawful, I won't
(38:11):
say violating international law,to invoke that and to identify
the fact that our people belongto a preexisting nation that's
been collapsed.
It's important Hear me out.
I'm explaining why.
I'm explaining why this is whyit's important for us to study
(38:34):
international law.
Don't use the wordunconstitutional, don't use the
word violated.
Don't use the word violated.
Don't use the word injured.
Use the Pacific InternationalLaw language subjugation.
Look it up.
I want y'all, I don't wantpeople to say Abdul Abay said
(38:56):
anything.
Look up the word subjugation.
Get international law books.
Oppenheim, get the OppenheimsH-O-P-P-E-N-H-E-I-M, volumes one
and volumes two.
You want to go to volume twobecause that's the law of war.
(39:18):
Volume one is the law of peace,volume two is the law of war,
so it'll be in volume two.
Subjugation, loss ofsovereignty is the law of war,
so it'll be in volume two.
Subjugation, loss ofsovereignty, post-luminium
military occupation, occupation,conquest, annexation.
(39:44):
And when you see, when you seesubjugation, it's not when I'm,
where.
It applies to an individual.
Subjugation Does not, would notapply To Brother Ron alone.
Subject the word SubjugationWould apply to Ron and his
(40:04):
people as a whole Belonging to aNation state that preexisted.
Would apply to Ron and hispeople as a whole belonging to a
nation state that pre-existed.
It's like the native people ofHawaii.
That's why the use of the wordsubjugation and not violation,
and not unconstitutional and notinjury and not harm.
(40:25):
Please hear me out, my brothersand sisters.
The words matter that we use.
I'm talking international lawlevel.
Have y'all any questions beforeI go on?
Do you have any questions?
Speaker 1 (40:45):
You got any questions , Mike.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
No, I'm actually listening.
It sounds like you know.
It sounds like a college course.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
Well, that's the purpose, because I have to teach
, you have to teach.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
He's saying the power of the language, the words, and
you know subjugation andeverything else.
You hear the rootness ofetymology and everything else
that he's saying legal terms,yes.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
And how I'm being very meticulous, absolute detail
Cause you I have to be, andparticularly in giving
instructions and and explainingwell, and I'm not, and I'm not
(41:33):
saying well, don't, don't saythat I got to explain.
Why not to say it?
Why not to use unconstitutional?
Why not to say unlawful?
Why not to say illegal?
Why not to say, you know,illegal, unlawful, why not to
say injury, all right, becausethat they don't apply to a, it
(41:56):
doesn't invoke the concept andthe principle that would apply
to a whole nation of people.
That's been what.
Subjugated by a state, we're nottalking.
I mean you're being and we'rebeing, our people being injured
(42:17):
by people, by people, but no bya state.
China injuring the you know,the French people.
China subjugating the people ofFrance.
I'm just going to give examplesnow.
China subjugating the people ofFrance.
(42:38):
China, a state, subjugating thepeople of France.
The people of France belong toa state France.
Or Germany subjugating theRussian people.
The Russian people belonged toa state, russia.
So that's what that invokes.
You wouldn't say China isviolating the people of France.
(43:03):
No, no, no, no, no.
It's subjugation when you'retalking about a whole nation of
people, the entire nation.
That's called subjugation ininternational law.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
Now are you saying a state or are you saying state
State?
Speaker 2 (43:23):
S-T-A state.
A state S-T-A-N, s-t-a-tA-State, s-t-a-n, s-t-a-t-e A
state is an international person.
International law China's astate A-State, s-s, not S-State,
not S-State A-State.
France is a state, germany is astate.
(43:43):
In international law, themodern, the modern constructive
meaning and I'm going to explainthe modern constructive meaning
that's used today.
That's been used for since, uh,since um 1648, since 1648, the
modern definition of statethat's been used in
(44:08):
international law is aninternational person.
How did this modern definitioncome about?
I'm glad you asked the question.
His name is Hugo van Groot.
Hugo van Groot was a Dutch, aDutch jurist, international
jurist.
In the late 1500s.
(44:30):
He constructed the moderndefinition that's used in United
Nations, that was used by theLeague of Nations, that's used
by all these nation states.
He constructed that definition.
That definition was adopted atthe at the Peace of Westphalia.
(44:53):
The conference was Westphalia,that ended the 30 year war, and
so the conference met from 1644to 1648 and at that conference
they adopted Hugo von Grupp'sdefinition of state and applied
(45:15):
that within the treaty calledthe Peace of Westphalia, which
is part of modern internationallaw.
I'm being very detailed.
As Brother Mike said, he hearsetymology, he hears the
semantics, he hears the.
You know how you know how aparticular word came about.
(45:36):
You know exactly.
That's important that we, thatwe, that we teach that, because
meanings don't just come out ofthin air.
There's various meanings are.
There's different meanings thatare constructed over the period
of time, just like the wordsovereign.
The word sovereign has beengiven several constructed
(45:59):
meanings over the period of 500years, from 13 through the.
1300s has one meaning.
1400s has a different meaning.
1500ss has one meaning.
1400s has a different meaning.
1500s has a different meaning.
1600 has a different meaning.
1700 has a different meaning.
(46:20):
So I just want to offer.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
You know, because I'm going to always, I'm going to
bring my etymology and semanticsknowledge to the always to the
platform.
Got you Okay?
So now, as far as how to studyand think right, dealing with
international law and just lawin your country, you have to
think in separate ways the wayyou're explaining it, right,
(46:50):
because certain words meancertain things in different
arenas and law.
So how do you?
How do you?
I mean, this is like a studythat you have to stay on top of
to really understand and beproficient at explaining
yourself when in these differentarenas now.
Speaker 2 (47:12):
But, brother ron, you're talking what?
All right, I'm glad youmentioned that.
You're talking um what I wastalking about, not you're
talking different meanings indifferent arenas.
Right, I wasn't talkingdifferent meanings in different
arenas.
Right, I wasn't talkingdifferent meanings in different
arenas.
I was talking differentmeanings in different time
(47:33):
periods.
Okay, I'm glad you mentionedthat so we can articulate I want
to, I want to.
I want the audience to hear me.
This is great.
Thank you for for saying that,because it it it gives me
opportunity to explain what youwere saying and what I'm saying.
We're saying two differentthings, but we're going to bring
(47:55):
it together.
You're talking about differentmeanings and different arenas.
I was talking about differentmeanings during different time
periods.
I mentioned the word sovereign.
The meaning of the wordsovereign, the meaning of the
word sovereign, has differentmeanings during the different
centuries.
So during the 1300s, there's adifferent meaning for it.
(48:18):
Then a different meaning wasconstructed.
During the 1500s, 1400s, adifferent meaning was
constructed.
During the 1500s, a differentmeaning was constructed.
During the 1500s, a differentmeaning was constructed during
the 1600s.
So that's different.
Those are different meaningsduring different time periods.
You're correct on what you'resaying about different meanings
(48:42):
on different levels.
So we want the audience to knowboth Different meanings during
different time periods,different meanings in different
levels.
Absolutely Okay.
This is people need thisknowledge.
Bro, I mean brothers.
(49:04):
They need this knowledge.
They need to learn how to thinkepistemologically.
So what I'm doing is givingthem the the application of
etymology and semantics.
And how is being applied inthese arenas that we're not
aware of?
Speaker 1 (49:26):
of so.
Being that words change in time, do they still matter in the
future?
So let's say if it was Okay, soyou got it.
Speaker 2 (49:39):
I got you Come on.
Come on, Please Come on, comeon.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
So let's say, a word came out and the definition came
out in 1930.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Does it still apply in 2025?
Oh, I love, I can hug you.
Oh, I can thank you.
You bring the best out of me.
Thank you, I need that.
Yes, now you know me anybodywho knows me I will never say
yes if I can't support it.
If I say yes, you already knowthat I can support it.
All right, there's an article,the original meaning of the
(50:14):
Commerce Clause by Randy Barnett, the original meaning of the
Commerce Clause by Randy Barnettand doing the there.
In that article you'll see thatduring a court case, supreme
(50:37):
Court case, where they usedJohnson's dictionary 1700s,
johnson's dictionary, written inthe 1700s, used to define the
word commerce.
So you're absolutely correct,because etymology is the history
, origin and too many words.
(51:02):
I'm going to continue.
You have two principles ofconstitutional interpretation
Originalists andconstructionalists.
An originalist would be me.
I would be an originalist.
I mean that the type, themeaning in which, the type, that
(51:25):
you interpret the Constitutionor interpret a passage and use
the meaning at the time in whichit was interpreted.
So that means you'll get booksduring the time period in which
it was interpreted.
You get dictionaries at thetime period in which the word
(51:46):
was and which it was drafted.
You get dictionaries, you getliterature at the time period in
which it was drafted, aconstructionist would be.
Well, society changes, so weneed to construct new meanings.
That's what's called aconstructionist, a originalist
(52:10):
and a constructionalist, andyou'll see that there are cases
where they use.
In fact, for a period of 100years, up until the early 1900s,
the Supreme Court justices usedetymology as a basis of their
(52:33):
interpretation.
What changed?
I'm glad you asked thatquestion, presidents.
What happens?
And Randy Barnett?
Happens and Randy Barnett.
I learned this by reading theoriginal meaning of the Commerce
Clause by Randy Barnett, aconstitutional lawyer who's a
(52:53):
professor at GeorgetownUniversity where Patrick Ewing
went.
And so I learned a lot frombecause I actually studied that
I don't just read, I studied, Ididn't read it Just, you know,
(53:16):
popcorn, I don't do that, Idon't do, I don't know what that
is, I don't do casual reading,I'm analyzing, studying it.
So that's why I can speak likethis on it, because I've, you
know, took it apart and analyzed.
And so what he?
In that article?
He explained that how.
(53:39):
Because you know how ithappened, where, during a period
of you know how it changed fromoriginalist constructionists.
Well, presidents, during aperiod of you know how it
changed from originalist toconstructionist.
Well, presidents, you know youwould have presidents, you know,
because you know presidents canappoint, you know, justices.
So a justice dies or retires,so a president, you know will
(54:02):
get a judge.
You know, nominate a judge whois a constructionist or a
visionist.
You may have for a period of,say, 30 straight years where you
have United States presidentswho are constructionist mindset
(54:27):
when they're doing theirpresidency.
There's a vacant seat in theSupreme Court.
He explained that because youknow, because you, nothing just
happens.
So he explained the process.
I said, oh, so we, I read that.
I said it opened up a lot ofportals.
I said, oh, my goodness, thisis deep.
(54:48):
I said, wow, I learned so muchby reading because I didn't have
a concept of originalconstructionalist.
I didn't even know about thatuntil reading that article.
Speaker 3 (55:02):
Yeah, that you just bust our heads open, because you
know what's so great about it.
That comment being said, I lookback at every presidential race
.
They may focus on the votes,but they always focus on the
seats of the judge who gets themost, and I'm like yo to see how
they would maneuver around thelaw whatever they can do, and
(55:23):
just now we're seeing that law,find Trump's presidency.
That's it.
It's just that his focus wasthe Supreme Court seats.
That's what he's focused on.
Like I got to get the sentence,I got to get the judges, you
know, and that's all he did.
So that's how he's maneuveringaround the law, like that they
(55:43):
label him the king because hefigured it out Exactly.
Speaker 2 (55:46):
Because they apply what?
What they do, because theyapply what they do, because they
apply a particularconstitutional interpretation,
once again, originalist,constructionalist.
So it's the.
This hit me on.
My brothers and sisters, youhave constitutional
(56:06):
interpretation methods.
It matters which one isemployed.
Let me give you another case.
In the Foster versus Nielsen.
This is Foster versus Nielsenand this was based off the
interpretation of the 18, 18treaty between Spain and the
(56:31):
United States.
That's when.
That was when that in thattreaty, spain ceded Florida to
United States in 1818, 1818treaty.
So it was Spain.
Spain granted land grant.
Spain granted Spanish landgrants to Spanish subjects in
(56:53):
Florida.
So the argument was that theydid.
Spain ceded the land to UnitedStates before this particular
land grant was granted.
The person made the claim thathe would be protected under the
(57:14):
treaty because Spain still hadcontrol of the land when it was
granted the land grant.
So in Foster v Nielsen, theEnglish version of the treaty
was read Hit me out.
And so which was an error?
(57:38):
Why You'll learn.
That was an error in Thompsonversus United States and
Thompson, and no Purchman andPurchman versus Thompson and
Purchman versus Thompson.
They made it clear that thatwas an error.
(58:01):
And reading the English versionof the treaty was error.
Why?
Because the Spanish version ofthe treaty was error.
Why?
Because the Spanish version ofthe treaty gives a different
interpretation.
So they did.
And the Foster versus Nielsen,the international canning of the
principles of interpretationwas not applied.
But and I think it was UnitedStates versus Purchment, united
(58:25):
States versus Purchment, theinternational law, the
international canon, principles,interpretation was applied.
The Spanish version of thetreaty was read.
That was.
And my brothers and sisters, youknow I know I'm a nerd, but I
(58:47):
do that because I, so I can doit, I can educate, I, I do that
so I can educate.
I can give examples, I cananswer questions, I can give
references upon references.
As I answer questions, I'm notcoming out of thin air.
I can give cases, I can giveother references upon references
, answering questions.
So I'm showing them, give allthe references upon reference
(59:09):
and asking questions.
So I'm explaining, I'm showingthem the value of study.
How will everyone empower us?
Speaker 1 (59:17):
Real quick.
I just want to say this hey,mike Paul Dyer, you know what I
mean.
I got you I got you, bro, socontinue brother.
Yes, Before I continue do y'allhave any?
Speaker 2 (59:28):
I?
Speaker 1 (59:28):
got you bro, alright so continue, brother.
Speaker 2 (59:29):
Yes, alright, before I continue, do y'all have any
questions?
Cause we're all tying this into it, all ties into the topic,
because the topic is aboutdehumanization, the use of color
(59:49):
and race.
But that is through what?
Through social engineering,through constructing a new, a
false paradigm, and socialengineering, a false paradigm,
you know, to and to the society.
So we're talking language, sothe language discussion is
(01:00:11):
paramount, absolutely, we're noteven, we're not even off the
topic, cause I, so yourquestions, your questions, you
know, cause your questions, youknow Allie bought value, further
value to the discussion.
Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Now let me ask you this To study the proper way to
study to like really understandnot only English, but the way to
present yourself, write letters, documents and things like that
, to proper present yourself.
How should we study to be?
(01:00:49):
You know what I mean To be Allright.
Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
So it is sorry.
So what and how one would studyis they would have to study
fields of study.
They would have to studygrammar.
They would have to.
You have to study.
This is how to study.
I'm great.
Good question Study grammar.
Well, how to study.
Good question study grammar.
Grammar is the building block toreading comprehension, because
(01:01:18):
if you're studying, you'rereading, but can you analyze
what you're reading?
Can you break, can you break itup to its component parts?
Do you know the principles ofgrammar, as grammar is the
building block to readingcomprehension.
So, so, so, and I wouldn't give, like you say, give
(01:01:43):
instructions to study.
It would be grammar, it wouldbe etymology, it would be
grammar, it would be etymology,it would be semantics, it would
be fields of study that wouldaid one into studying.
Not a class on how to study.
Let me explain why.
(01:02:03):
Not a class on how to study?
Because there's no value inthat.
Let me explain.
There's no value in that.
Let me explain.
There's no value in that.
Someone who doesn't know grammar, how would a class?
Are someone who is poor ingrammar, how would a class on
how to study me?
You're not teaching grammar.
You're not teaching themgrammar.
(01:02:23):
How would a class on how tostudy help them?
Grammar is very important.
I study grammar and I teachgrammar.
I'm not saying grammar.
I study grammar and I teachgrammar basic and advanced
grammar.
That I do know.
I know the value of grammar andhow it aids in reading
(01:02:47):
comprehension.
So if they're poor grammar andyou ain't teaching them grammar,
how are you teaching them howto study?
All right, let me give anexample.
Let me give an example, ron.
There's something just basic.
(01:03:11):
Ron threw the ball.
Ron threw the ball.
Who threw the ball?
Ron, right, what did Ron throw?
So, ron, is the subject ThroughPast tense, because that gives
(01:03:36):
you time.
Past tense, not present tense,not future tense.
Alright, so now we're lookingat what Tense, now Time tense.
What did he throw?
Ball?
Was it the direct object?
Now I ask this question whendid Ron throw the ball?
Speaker 1 (01:04:01):
he threw the ball in the past, but when?
Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
in the past.
So where did he throw the?
So where did he throw the ball?
Where did Ron throw the ball?
Speaker 1 (01:04:15):
You got me a little stumped.
I'm kind of pardon me.
Pardon me more.
I'm trying to set up the nextinterview.
Speaker 2 (01:04:22):
No problem, I got you yes, so let me.
So the answer.
So the answer.
The answer is that theinformation is not provided.
When, why did he throw it?
Where did he throw it?
The information is not provided.
All is provided is that whatdid Ron throw A ball?
Not when, not where, not how,right.
(01:04:47):
So that's in grammar.
So we can give that informationwith grammar how he threw it,
where he threw it, the time, andthat's grammar, that's through
the knowledge of grammar.
So someone who has a poorknowledge of grammar, that's
studying.
I'm just giving a and I thankyou, brother Ron.
Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
So that means the words have a significant value?
Yes, However, without thegrammar you can't really hold
the words.
Speaker 2 (01:05:26):
Thank you, thank you.
That's Professor Burton, thewords.
Thank you, thank you.
That's Professor Burton, theone who taught me.
You sound like him.
He said that.
He said exactly that, professorBurton.
My etymology professor saidexactly that.
I remember I was at ProfessorBurton's house.
I was at Professor Burton'shouse, this was 1990, my first
(01:05:50):
semester of 1998.
I was at his house October,november, 1998.
And I said Professor Burton, Iwant to improve my reading
comprehension.
He says, yeah, you do itthrough grammar.
(01:06:10):
I think no, we were.
I think I was studying grammarat the time.
This was my, this was thesecond semester with Professor
Byrne, so it was 1999.
And he said yeah, you're doingit by studying grammar.
I said what he said.
Yeah, he said you can improveyour reading by studying grammar
.
I said what man?
(01:06:32):
And guess what?
He was right and he saidexactly what you said, because
he emphasized the importance ofgrammar and the value of it.
Remember it's etymologyteaching.
(01:06:53):
He said how you said it.
He said it just like that.
He sure did.
Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
So studying grammar is key Absolutely, and knowing
where to put the words thatthat's all a part of grammar.
Speaker 2 (01:07:11):
Absolutely, absolutely All right.
So if you want to convey athought, absolutely, uh, brother
Ron, all right.
Now you want to convey athought on paper, what don't you
have to use grammar now to putto convey a thought?
You have to use to even speakit.
To speak it, you're usinggrammar to interpret, using the
(01:07:39):
principles of grammar.
Run through the ball, runthrough the ball.
I just want to do somethingthat's simple, because you got
to get something that's simple,but I can, like I said I asked
the question where did Ron throwthe ball?
The answer is not provided.
(01:07:59):
The answer is not provided,information is not provided,
right, but I'm saying that youcan construct that, ron, through
grammar, right, you can add, Ican add an adverbial clause of
time.
And verbial clause of time, Ican add an adverb, I mean so how
did he throw the ball?
That's an adverb, you know.
Add an adverb.
How do you throw the ball?
That's an adverb, a singleadverb.
(01:08:24):
You can add clauses, a verbalclause of time.
When you're proficient in thegrammar, you can dance it, you
can make it dance, you can breakit dance.
You can break sentences apart.
My brothers and sisters, I didnot know I could not break down
(01:08:49):
long sentences.
I remember when I started I metTasha in October 1993.
And in the older lawdictionaries, in the Black's Law
dictionaries, in the older oneI started I met Tasha Rebae in
October 1993.
And in the older lawdictionaries, in the Black's Law
dictionaries in the older one,the fourth edition, third
edition they have long sentences, the definitions, they have
long sentences.
(01:09:10):
I had a difficulty in readinglong sentences, not now.
What helped me Grammar?
By studying clauses that nowclauses, adjective clauses,
adverbial clauses, phrases,germans, participles,
(01:09:30):
infinitives.
Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
Now, this is where, this is where sentence structure
go ahead, ron, right this iswhere I, personally, I would say
, believe our peoples, moorsthat call themselves black,
right.
Yes, being that, I would say,black culture.
(01:09:52):
What's ingrained in blackculture is slang, and this is, I
think, what keeps us behind,because it perpetuates bad
grammar, poor speaking, etcetera, and in order for you to
really hone in on the skill ofspeaking well, you have to speak
(01:10:17):
it all the time.
Speaker 2 (01:10:19):
You got to practice it, you got gotta do it.
I mean absolutely.
You gotta do it, I meanabsolutely.
Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
I think the slang further perpetuates the Negro
state of mind and legal.
You know what they call a civillittle mortals.
Speaker 2 (01:10:42):
Absolutely, and we don't control anything.
So we can't afford to be thatway.
Right, that's not.
(01:11:02):
That doesn't that continues tooppress us, right?
Okay, you know they like saidto subjugate keeps us in a
subject that perpetuates thesubjugation state right now.
Speaker 1 (01:11:08):
I want to know how did this happen?
Like we're slaying and beingthugs and dark thinking and
speaking and negativity.
How did that become such aanchor in our community?
Was that designed because itall kind of like came together
(01:11:32):
at a certain period for lack ofa better term like maybe around,
maybe like the 80s?
Speaker 2 (01:11:38):
there was a.
There was a meeting in 1990.
There was a in the mid-80s.
I'm going to back up then.
I'll go to the meeting.
In the mid-80s the prisons wereprivatized.
It all ties in to answeringyour question.
The prisons were privatized andso that so the corporations got
(01:12:02):
a, have a contract with thestates and the states are in the
contract.
There are, there arestipulations, there's conditions
, stipulations the states areobligated to keep the prisons
full.
Stipulations the states areobligated to keep the prisons
full.
The states were breaching theircontract by not keeping the
(01:12:25):
prisons full.
So the master plan was thatmeeting 1990 with rappers.
They didn't attack heavy metal,they did not attack heavy metal
.
They did not attack heavy metal.
They did not attack hard rock.
They attack rap.
(01:12:47):
Keep in mind, they attack rap.
There was a meeting in 1990.
Some rappers were there.
That was so to what To put thecriminal element into rap.
Some rappers were there thatwas so to what To put the
criminal element into rap.
That was planned.
They had no choice you rap this, no, you rap this, or you don't
(01:13:11):
rap at all.
You rap this or you don't rapat all.
So the brothers are not lyingwhen they say well, I had to do
it because you have brothersthat say that used to have
interviews Rappers.
Absolutely, they ain't lying.
That was the plan.
So that was to criminalize rapmusic, to put that hard criminal
(01:13:37):
element, to implant that in ourchildren with that criminology.
That's how that.
That's that, you see, becauseyou said in the 80s and I'm here
, you're right.
So that was a strong, concertedeffort.
Nothing just happens, that wasby planned land.
Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
Now someone said, speaking on slang, can you
explain connotative anddenotative?
Speaker 2 (01:14:09):
Yes, there are scholars.
All right, let me do it thisway first, and then I'll go into
that.
There are scholars.
Denotation, denote, so it meansmark, point, so to mark.
(01:14:32):
So you mark or designate, markor designate, mark or designate
Glasses, eyeglasses.
So eyeglasses is the term.
(01:14:54):
So you have the thought, theobject, all right, and the words
.
You have the thought, the wordand the object.
So this is the word iseyeglasses.
The object is what I'm holdingin my hand.
(01:15:16):
I say what does the wordglasses denote?
What does the word glassesdenote?
What does the word glassesdenote?
And someone says what does theword eyeglasses denote?
And someone says eyeglasses.
That's the wrong answer.
You said the word eyeglasses.
All you had to do was point toit, because the word eyeglasses
(01:15:40):
does not denote the wordeyeglasses.
All you had to do was point toit, because the word eyeglasses
does not denote the wordeyeglasses.
The word eyeglasses denote whatI'm holding in my hand.
Just point to it.
Just point to it.
It means you're pointing to itTo designate, to mark.
Okay.
So let me explain connotation.
Connotation is figurative, likeyou are you.
(01:16:03):
So we're looking at um, let'ssay rock, and, and the actual
object rock.
So you have the word rock andthe object rock.
So they, the word rock denotesthe object rock, so the word
rock denotes the object rock.
Now we're talking connotation.
(01:16:25):
Ron is a rock.
Well, we know that Ron is not aactual rock.
So I'm using rock connotatively, associative meaning, strength.
So the associative meaning.
So rock is hard, you know.
(01:16:45):
So I'm using an associative orconnotative meaning and applying
that to Ron's character, to Ronis a rock and that is a.
That is what's known as ametaphor.
(01:17:06):
A simile would be the use oflike or as Ron is as a rock or
like a rock.
That's a simile.
A metaphor is Ron is a rock.
Now, what's the differencebetween a simile, a metaphor is
Ron is a rock.
Now, what's the differencebetween a simile and metaphor?
When you use a metaphor, as inRon is a rock, that is, his
(01:17:29):
character, is strongly resembles, that is of a rock, that's hard
and strong, strongly strong,Whereas Ron is like a rock, it's
not, as it's not as strong.
You know, if I really want tomake my point of describing
(01:17:52):
Ron's character from a strongpoint, I will use a metaphor,
not a simile.
See, I'm not just metaphor, nota simile.
See, I'm not just explainingwhat I can explain why.
Speaker 1 (01:18:04):
Okay, okay, all right .
People in the chat, y'allfollowing this, y'all following
this.
You got to pay attention.
You can't be watching TV andwatching.
Oh, no, no, they don't want towatch no TV while I'm on.
Ok so now?
(01:18:24):
Great, great explanation, greatdemonstration.
Now we, we are going to closeout now.
However, we'd love to have youcome back on and keep explaining
this.
Speaker 2 (01:18:41):
I'm going to be every second and fourth Wednesday.
I have other people that willcome with me, and Brother Israel
Bay and Brother King El Bay andBrother Viserious Ill.
I'll do the next one, I'll do,I'll.
Actually, I might do the nextone.
I might do the next one withBrother Israel.
(01:19:02):
Brother Israel and I will dothe next one together.
That'll be the fourth Wednesday.
Speaker 1 (01:19:08):
Right, so check, check, check, check.
I hope y'all got what thebrother displayed today.
Now we understand who we haveon the check-in every second and
fourth and fourth Wednesday.
Wednesday is all aboutetymology, grammar words, et
cetera.
Speaker 2 (01:19:26):
International law.
Speaker 1 (01:19:27):
International law.
Speaker 2 (01:19:28):
Jurisprudence, legal principles yes, I got some heavy
hitters with me.
I got some heavy hitters.
Speaker 1 (01:19:34):
Indeed.
Thank you, brother, for comingout this evening.
We really appreciate you.
See y'all.
On Friday we have a live fromthe 5% Nation, wise Asia.
She's coming up to tell herstory.
Saturday we got the Moorishbrother Sha'el on Saturday.
Sunday we got brother EricMuhammad from the Nation of
(01:19:58):
Islam.
Thank you for coming out thisevening, brother Abdullah, and
we are out of here.
Peace, peace you.
all right, all right, all right.
What's going on?
What's going on?
Everybody out there is ronbrown lmt, the people's fitness
professional, my co-host.
He is in route right now.
In route right now.
He is on his way.
Thank you guys for tuning in.
We got the brother Abdullah Bayin the building Round of
(00:40):
applause.
Thanks to everybody in the chatright now.
Two people in the chat.
I really appreciate those twopeople.
Make yourself known.
If that's a bin, let me know.
If that's awareness daily, letme know.
Talk to me in the chat.
Talk to me in the chat.
Anyway, let's talk.
Let's talk.
Brother Abdullah Abdullah Bay,we're talking about the
(01:02):
dehumanization through race andcolor.
And if you could break downyour title, your title, explain
your title before we go into it.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Before I speak, my name no, your title.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
How Race and Color have Been Used.
Oh, my title.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
You know what I got you?
Well, that is, that'll be doneduring the course.
But, yeah, so thedehumanization of through race
and color, you know, I'm gonna,I'm going to uh explain what
that is and uh explain the uh,the origin of race, the
(01:46):
constructive meaning that's beengiven to the word color, and
how this false thought paradigmhas dehumanized us as a people.
Meaning has actually removedour national characteristics.
(02:07):
So I'm going to definitely getinto that in more detail as we
go through the podcast.
Okay.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
So now I want to let's let's talk about it a
little bit.
A little brief history.
I met the brother years back, Ithink it was like 0607.
Uh, he was from what I remember.
He was with taj and ross, yes,and uh, you know you, you got
like a few books.
In fact, I have you some ofyour material downstairs.
(02:38):
I wish I would have brought itup, man, damn.
Uh, very helpful etymology book.
He's the author of a few booksand also classes.
I've taken classes with himthere, building about etymology
and breaking down words.
More history, more science whatelse, I think?
Speaker 2 (03:03):
the astronomy or what they call what they was.
People call Masonic symbols OK,actually measurement tools and
devices, but I actuallyexplained the astronomical use
application of them.
That's in my book the MasonicCompens Square and the
(03:24):
Connection to Measurement andTimekeeping, Nice.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Now also, I think you were in attendance when we did
with me and Knowledge Eternalfrom the Clock of Destiny, also
5% Nation, when we had a unityrally between it was Roz there,
Nakeem Bay there, Jelani there.
It was Roz there, Nakeem Baythere, Jelani there, man C
(03:47):
Ferguson, Ill from the KirkmanBay faction, and I think you
were in attendance there.
We were in a Masonic Lodge.
We went upstairs yeah, I wasthere.
Yeah, that was way back in theday.
That was yes.
Yeah, that was way back in theday.
Yeah, that was yes.
Yeah, that was way back.
But now fast forward 2025, I'mstill doing the work, but now
(04:12):
I'm doing the work virtually,You're still doing the work.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
brother, greatly appreciate your steadfastness,
your commitment and yourhumanitarian love that you have
for our people.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Indeed, same same to you, brother.
Really appreciate you.
Now let's just talk about yourhistory a little bit, and then
we'll go more into the podcast.
So now, from what I remember,you're from Philadelphia.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Camden.
I live in Philly, but I'm bornand raised across the bridge.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Camden.
Ok, you were born and raised inCamden and you moved to
Philadelphia.
And what was your upbringinglike?
How did you end up in moralscience in that that world?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Well, I was always curious about, Well, I was
always curious about, you know,where words came from.
You know, I remember becauseI've been studying etymology
since 1998, and I recall, when Iwas seven, eight years old, you
(05:21):
know, staring out my window andjust wondering, and I remember
asking this question to myselfwhere did the word tree come
from?
And it's just so fitting that Istudy etymology now and I'm
seven, eight years old, I'masking the question to myself
(05:43):
where did the word tree comefrom?
Why is it called a tree?
Years old, I'm asking thequestion to myself where did the
word tree come from?
You know, why is it called atree?
You know, and I would you know?
And I'm like, wow, so I was, Iwas always curious and, um, one
of my favorite um subjects wasEnglish.
You know, when I was in school,I was a a decent speller.
I used to win, I used to placehigh in.
(06:03):
I was in school, I was a decentspeller, I used to place high
in spelling bees in school, andso that was.
I was among Europeans, a lot ofEuropeans, when I from ninth
grade, from ninth grade all theway to graduate school, Because
(06:24):
I went to a predominantlyEuropean high school.
I was bused.
I took the bus to go to school.
I didn't go to high school inCamden, I went to Canada
Catholic Cherry Hill High School.
The reason why it's calledCanada Catholic Cherry Hill High
School is because it was inCamden.
It burned down and theyrelocated to Cherry Hill High
(06:45):
School.
Because it was in Camden and itburned down and they relocated
to Cherry Hill.
So I was among a lot ofEuropeans from high school, from
ninth grade to graduate school.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Okay, so how was that experience Going to school with
a lot of Europeans wherethere's racism there, and maybe
that sparked your interest tothink.
You know, delve more into likehistory and things like that.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Yeah, what I?
What I observed with Is thatthe Europeans kept to themselves
and the more is classified asblack kept to themselves.
It was that.
So we hung out.
Moors classified as black hungout.
It was about 90% European and10% more classified as
(07:43):
nickel-colored black.
So it wasn't where it was.
99 10% more classified asnickel colored black Right.
Okay, yeah, so it wasn't where.
It was 99.5% European, it waslike about 10% of us and 90% of
them.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Got you.
So there was some kind ofracial tension at points.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
At times you had, you had more as classified as
Puerto Ricans, more classifiedas Blacks they were at that time
they would say race riots, youknow, there would be Blacks
against Puerto Ricans, right,you know, type thing.
That went on too, because therewas a few years, like I said,
(08:24):
it was like I said it was like Isaid the 10% was more
classified as Black and PuertoRicans and the 90% was Europeans
Got you, got you and aroundthat time we're talking around
what time period that?
was 19,.
That was 80, 83 to 87.
(08:47):
83 to 87.
I was in high school.
College from 87 to 91.
Graduate school from 91 to 93.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
What college did you go to?
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Glassboro State College, now Rowan University.
Then I went on to the grad gradrecords university, graduate
school, social work in newBrunswick, New.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Jersey, nice, okay.
So uh, uh, what did you majorin?
Speaker 2 (09:17):
I sociology and then I got a master's in social work
at the graduate school ofsociology Nice that's peace.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
So you know I always ask this question because you
know I don't want to sound likea broken record, but you know, I
know, like me personally, I wasimpacted by the crack era in
the 80s and the 90s.
So did you experience that partof history and you know that
era?
Speaker 2 (09:46):
not, so I was.
My mother was strict and so shewas on curfew.
I remember I gotta tell thisstory.
Don't laugh at me.
It's true.
So don't laugh.
(10:07):
Y'all don't laugh because mystudents laughed at me.
You know what I mean.
My students would laugh when Isubstituted.
They would laugh because theycould be out in ninth grade and
they can hang out at 12 o'clockand 1 o'clock in the morning.
I'm like whoa what?
My curfew my 12th, my seniorand they can hang out at 12
o'clock and 1 o'clock in themorning.
I'm like whoa, what.
My curfew my senior in highschool was 10 o'clock.
(10:37):
My senior I'm 18 years oldSenior in high school Curfew was
10 o'clock.
My mom did not play.
I recall.
I'll never forget this.
I was 10 minutes late.
(10:59):
I wish I was lying.
I wish I was lying.
I wish I was lying.
I was 10 minutes late.
Open the door, I got the key.
My mom is standing at the doorwith a belt wow 18 years old,
(11:28):
senior in high school and justabout to graduate from high
school.
Two months or three months fromgraduation, I was dating a
sister and I was late, 10 monthslate.
My mom did not play, and youknow what I appreciate that, I
(11:48):
appreciate that I do Right, shedidn't get it.
Yes, I wanted to.
I had to, you know, wanted toconvey that story.
It's a true story.
My brother and sister I am notmaking that up- Wow Shouts out
to mom.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Thank you, mom, for doing that.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Yeah, she said she transitioned in 2000, december
2018.
Absolutely, my mom, yeah, andmy stepfather as well, but they
were, yeah.
That's how that epitomizes howI was raised.
Yeah, I was yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
So this discipline led you to study.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yes, oh, absolutely yes, I would.
I would say so Definitely.
Being very disciplined, beingvery focused, that was I was
reared that way, absolutely Fromearly age.
You know, I didn't becomedisciplined and focused when I
became an adult.
(12:47):
That was I was raised to bethat Nice, nice.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
So.
So, now that we have, oh peace,peace, yasro Bay, peace to you,
peace and respect.
Just to let everyone know, Iknow you guys see me, you know,
hit your the ad, the friend.
I'm trying to friend you guyson Facebook.
So that's me, that's me, that'sme.
So now let's go into it, nowthat we have a brief history.
(13:14):
I'm sure you know they want tohear what you have to say about
the dehumanization through raceand color.
However, you want to set thatoff race and color.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
However, however, you want to set that off.
Yes, I want to set off by byasking it, by asking a question
and out there I'll answer.
How do we fight against racism?
And we often people you know,we'll often hear that you have.
You have people you know moreclassified as nigga color, black
, african-american continue topush that.
You know people you know moreclassified as nigger-colored,
black African-American continueto push that.
You know we gotta fight againstracism.
(13:51):
You know what I mean.
You know never give up thefight against racism.
You know what I mean.
So we gotta stand againstracism and that's been beaten in
us, you know.
Fight against racism.
And now, so you know how youfight against racism.
Oh, Teach the people the originof the paradigm.
(14:15):
This is dehumanizing paradigm.
Let's go.
So the fight against racism.
I want to, because I want totake this angle that get
(14:38):
people's attention.
The fight against racism.
We got to go to 1684.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
1684.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
1684.
1684.
Well, how can going to 1684going to help us fight against
racism?
Oh well, it'll give you.
You'll give you the origin ofthis paradigm, of the paradigm
(15:08):
New, the vision of the world.
France wabiner, his newdivision of the earth, whereby
he classified the human familyusing non-nationality,
(15:29):
non-pedigree, non-consequentious, non-ancestral words black,
white, red, brown and yellow.
Black, white, red, brown andyellow.
This is how you fight againstracism by teaching the people
(15:53):
the origin of the paradigm andhow the paradigm steals our
birthright, how it dehumanizesus.
So, through that socialengineering concept, beginning
(16:15):
with Francois Bonner, with thatstructure, and then continued
with and then further expandedby Johann Friedrich Blumenbach
and we.
This is that was so.
You have Colonnais with hisSystema Naturae and 12 editions
(16:42):
from 1713 to 1732.
Systema Naturae with 12 or 13editions, 1713 to 1732.
You have Johan he was a Swedishnaturalist Francois Pernier.
(17:02):
Francois Pernier was a Frenchcraniologist and he actually he
lived in, he lived in India orHindustan for nine years and he
studied Francois Bonner.
Going back to him, he studiedthe caste system, so he
(17:23):
developed the concept upon mystudied the caste system.
So he developed the concept bystudying the caste system of
India.
So he came and wrote the bookthe Invention of the Racial
Classification, and that's wherehe came up.
That's where he developed thatnew division of the earth in
(17:45):
1684.
This is how you fight againstracism.
I know it's a new for ourpeople because they could.
They lack the knowledge.
It's only because they lack theknowledge of the origin of the
paradigm.
They think it's real blackwhite.
They think it's real BlackWhite.
(18:07):
I remember when I was teachingand cammed in school and I was
substituting, there was a I'mgoing to say this there was a
more classified as nigger colorblack and he was from the.
(18:29):
He was, he was.
We had a guest be with theguest speaker and he was from
Rutgers University Department ofHuman Relations, Department of
Human Relations At RutgersUniversity, and I remember his
(18:50):
saying.
I was standing at the door, itwas the fifth grade class, he
was a guest speaker and I wasstanding in the back At the door
and I remember his sayingDuring the course of his
presentation it doesn't matterwhat you call yourself Black,
(19:12):
white, red, orange or purple,keep in mind Rutgers University,
no, no, I'm sorry, foreignrelations, I apologize, not
human rights.
Rutgers University, foreignrelations department.
I was heated man, I wassingeing inside.
(19:37):
You're from Rutgers UniversityForeign Relations Department and
you say to here's the sort yousay to the children it doesn't
matter what you call yourselfblack, white, red, orange or
(19:59):
purple and you've heard thisbefore, y'all heard this, this
ain't new, this is not new, thatloosely saying, and no matter
what you, who you are black,white, red, purple, orange See
that social engineering.
Yeah, see, the dehumanization isdone through social engineering
.
So with that social engineering, there's no thinking involved.
(20:24):
There's no thinking.
So people are not rationalizingit.
This is what's called operativeconditioning, pavlov's dog.
You think that they were justgoing to use that on animals?
That they're going to use that.
They use an animal for testing,to apply to humans.
(20:50):
That's not just for animals,though.
The operative conditioningwhere they use Pavlov's dog bell
, they ring a bell, he salivates, ring a bell, salivates, but
that was just the dog was justused for experimentation that
(21:12):
they applied for in traininghumans and animals.
So the operative conditioningof black, black, black, black
Look, what color are you?
Black?
There's no thinking.
Our people, they're notthinking, they're not
(21:32):
rationalizing.
It's training, it's operativeconditioning.
We're just conscious of it,that's conditioning, we're just
conscious of it, that's all.
We're just conscious.
So we can rationalize.
We can critically think aboutit.
There's no thinking at all.
I had students will walk up tome as I taught nationality to
(21:57):
over 5,000 students in a KansasCity public school.
I ran my big mouth.
I taught over 500 teachers,both Europeans and most
classified in the color, blackand classified Spanish teachers.
(22:19):
I ran my big mouth, I didn'tkeep quiet.
I was known for talking, I wasknown for teaching.
So students would ask, andteaching the students about
nationality and that of their,about nationality and that of
(22:39):
their Moorish nationality, andteaching that black's not a
nationality.
And then so, like I said,pavlov's dog.
Again, operative conditioningthere's no thinking.
What do you mean?
So I recall, students will walkup to me, to me, come out their
(23:00):
seats, grab my arm.
They would grab my arm, grab mywrist and hold my wrist to my
face.
Look at you, mr bay, look atyou, you're black.
Look at you.
Look at you.
Remember there's there's nothinking.
See, now you're chucklingbecause you are aware You're
(23:27):
thinking about it.
Once again, go back to Pavlov'sdog.
There's training, no thinking.
That's social engineering,exactly.
So it's like what do you mean?
We're not Black.
Look at you, look at you.
See, that that's conditioning.
(23:52):
So I got it.
So we.
That's a beautiful analogy rightthere.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
I read about that in Na pardon, in naeem akbar's book
breaking the psychologicalchains of slavery, when he spoke
about the pavlo um concept.
Absolutely, and that'ssomething that's true, because
you're trained basically out ofyour own natural element.
Thank you like cognitivedissonance, cognitive dissonance
, cognitive dissonance.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
Absolutely, that's exactly what it is.
Yeah, yep, cognitive dissonance.
So definitely dissonance.
So this is very strong.
So it's going to take.
It's going to take unity amongconscious moors, which doesn't
exist.
I'm going to get on.
I got you conscious't exist.
(24:38):
I'm going to.
I'm going to get on, I got youconscious moors, I'm going to
get on y'all.
I'm going to get on y'all.
Conscious moors, yes, I am, I'mgoing to get on y'all.
I can't get on unconsciousmoors because they don't know
Exactly.
So I got to get on consciousmoors with this, this unity,
with this unity trying to outdoeach other.
Come on now, 33 years now forme, 33 years of observation of
(25:07):
seeing conscious mores trying tooutdo each other, fighting each
other and bashing each otherand bashing each other.
I mean, what happened?
You hear me?
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Yep, I hear you now.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
I was trying.
I hit the.
I answered the call when Ididn't mean to.
I was trying to.
I hit the.
I hit the.
Hey, I hit the red instead of.
I hit the green instead of thered.
Yes, so we're going to need.
We got to work together.
You don't see that amongconscious mores.
(25:53):
You see, you know this, youknow trying to outdo each other
and who's better, and we got tomove away from that.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
I call it intellectual masturbation.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
It's intellectual masturbation.
Yes, there's a lot of thatamong conscious moors, man A lot
of that and I've seen that for33 years.
And we have to man A lot ofthat and I've seen that for 33
years.
And and I, I, you know, we, wegotta, we have to, we have to
work through that, you know, andI and I reason, I'm mentioning
that it ties into what I'msaying, because in order for us
(26:30):
to connect with unconsciousmores and teach them that, that,
because it's because it's sostrong that dehumanization, the
Francois Bonner's paradigm is soembedded, so ingrained, it's
going to take a united effortamong conscious moors.
(26:52):
You know, it's not just a fewof us, it's going to take what
we're working together andteaching, you know.
But yeah, somebody keep callingme, yeah, so let me continue.
(27:18):
Let me continue with the lesson.
So we have here Dr King.
Dr King said he had a dreamthat one day my four little
children will grow up and livein a world where they not be
judged by the color of theirskin but by the content of their
(27:43):
character.
I have a dream.
So his dream was be judged bythe content of that character
and not by the color of our skin.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
Right.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Are we judged by our complexion?
Really, really.
That's real Are we?
Are we being mistreated merelybecause of our complexion?
They hate us merely because ofour complexion.
(28:18):
They hate us merely because ofour complexion.
They hold us down merelybecause of complexion.
They shoot us down merelybecause of our complexion.
Meaning it's nothing else.
It has nothing to do withanything else.
It has nothing to do with thatstone in our land.
(28:39):
It has nothing to do withanything else.
It has nothing to do with thatstone in our land.
It has nothing to do with that.
They've buried our history.
It has only to do with thecomplexion of our skin.
Do they really believe that?
Do conscious Moors truly intheir hearts believe that?
Do conscious moors truly intheir hearts believe that?
(29:01):
I don't.
I don't think they believe thatthat's the party line.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
They fear your greatness.
I can tell you that.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Yeah, that's the, but I'm saying conscious moors.
I'm raising the question doconscious, do you think
conscious more I mean Iconscious more Do you think
unconscious mores classified asNegro colored, black,
african-american, okay, truly intheir hearts, believe that
(29:33):
there are mistreatment Is solelybecause of our complexion?
I don't, I don't think theybelieve that that's, that's,
that's the party line, that'sthat, that's that racism push
(29:53):
party line.
But I don't think they.
They can't exactly put theiryou know, they know something
that we don't know our history.
They do know that they don'tknow what the history is, but
they know that there's a lackingof our history, knowledge of
who we are, but that we're beingjudged by our complexion.
(30:19):
That is definitely amisdirection, a cover-up, a
disguise for the continuation ofour subjugation.
Let's look at Mariah Carey.
I'm going to give up, mariahCarey.
I'm going to give up.
Mariah Carey was on a show andshe was asked a question.
(30:43):
I'm going to let me go right toit now.
Mariah Carey was asked aquestion.
She was on a talk show and thehost asked her this question
what color are you?
Mariah's answer In this country, black, really.
(31:10):
She's answering.
Really, in this country, black,really.
My mother's Irish.
My mother is Irish, she is likethe queen of Ireland.
My father is black.
He grew up in Harlem and servedhis country.
His father's mother, mygrandmother, is Venezuelan.
(31:35):
So the word color, theetymology, mother is Venezuelan.
So the word color, theetymology, that means the true
meaning.
And the legal meaning of theword color means to hide and
conceal, disguise, fake,artificial, distinguished from
(32:00):
that which is real.
How did the word color gain itsconstructive meaning of
complexion, pigmentation, skintone, shade or hue?
And that there, pigmentation,skin tone, shade or hue.
(32:22):
And that there you have thislegal term people of color,
color, people color.
When someone looks like DonaldTrump, they don't associate with
that word color, they won'trelate that word color to
(32:44):
themselves.
No one will say Donald Trump isa man of color.
So is the constructive meaningcomplexion or a certain
complexion?
Is this constructive meaningfor the word color just merely
(33:08):
complexion or a certaincomplexion?
Because no one would say DonaldTrump is a man of color.
Once again, social engineering,social engineering.
I'm going to the socialengineering aspect now.
Let's go back.
We're going back to that.
Why don't people refer toDonald Trump as a man of color?
(33:31):
Because the constructivemeaning that has been applied to
the word color is of a certainpigmentation that looked like of
our pigmentation.
They won't relate to that, sothey'll say, donald Trump, don't
(33:56):
have a color.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Now what does that implicate in the in law?
What is the implications in lawor socially when you are
classified as a person of color?
Speaker 2 (34:15):
So what it does is?
It takes you out of theprotection of law, it's
dehumanizing, it affords you nointernational human rights
recognition and protection.
It so what it does.
(34:41):
It makes you dead in the eyesof the law, similar to Mottus
dead in the eyes of the law.
So if you're talking humanrights, you have to be what Of a
nation, one of whom has anationality, because a
(35:11):
nationality ties a people to anation state.
So it actually keeps us in asubjugated, dehumanizing state.
And I want to continue to usethe word subjugation.
I'm going to tell you why Idon't use the words loosely.
I don't just use words randomlyand loosely.
I'm using the word subjugationto invoke international law.
(35:33):
I won't say unlawful, why I'mgoing to explain why you will
not hear me say unlawful, whyI'm explaining why you will not
hear me say unlawful, becausesaying unlawful doesn't invoke
international law.
And I'm going to continue toexplain.
By using the word subjugation,not only am I invoking
(36:00):
international law, subjugationapplies to a nation of people
that's been subjugated byanother nation of people, by
another nation.
See.
So by using the wordsubjugation, hear me out, my
brothers and sisters please.
By using the word subjugation,hear me out, my brothers and
sisters, please.
(36:21):
By using the word subjugation,I am identifying our people as
belonging to a nation that'sbeen subjugated.
Let me give you an exampleHawaii, the native people of
Hawaii, united States.
Hawaii, the native people ofHawaii, united States invaded
(36:43):
Hawaii, the kingdom of Hawaii,in 1893.
That's called, that'ssubjugation, subjugation.
And then we're talkinginternational law.
Subjugation in internationallaw establishes a new title.
So we won't say I will not say,because I know international
(37:07):
law United States is violatingthe people, the native people of
Hawaii.
The United States is committingunlawful acts against the
native people of Hawaii.
The United States is committingunlawful acts against the
native people of Hawaii.
I will not use that language.
United States is subjugating.
(37:28):
It makes a difference Becausewhen you use the word
subjugation and invokesinternational law and that a
state is subjugating a state, astate United States is
subjugating a people, nativeIwaki, that belongs to a state,
(37:50):
king of Iwaki.
That's why I have to explainwhy I'm using words.
We're talking international lawhere.
So I won't say unconstitutional, I won't say unlawful, I won't
(38:11):
say violating international law,to invoke that and to identify
the fact that our people belongto a preexisting nation that's
been collapsed.
It's important Hear me out.
I'm explaining why.
I'm explaining why this is whyit's important for us to study
(38:34):
international law.
Don't use the wordunconstitutional, don't use the
word violated.
Don't use the word violated.
Don't use the word injured.
Use the Pacific InternationalLaw language subjugation.
Look it up.
I want y'all, I don't wantpeople to say Abdul Abay said
(38:56):
anything.
Look up the word subjugation.
Get international law books.
Oppenheim, get the OppenheimsH-O-P-P-E-N-H-E-I-M, volumes one
and volumes two.
You want to go to volume twobecause that's the law of war.
(39:18):
Volume one is the law of peace,volume two is the law of war,
so it'll be in volume two.
Subjugation, loss ofsovereignty is the law of war,
so it'll be in volume two.
Subjugation, loss ofsovereignty, post-luminium
military occupation, occupation,conquest, annexation.
(39:44):
And when you see, when you seesubjugation, it's not when I'm,
where.
It applies to an individual.
Subjugation Does not, would notapply To Brother Ron alone.
Subject the word SubjugationWould apply to Ron and his
(40:04):
people as a whole Belonging to aNation state that preexisted.
Would apply to Ron and hispeople as a whole belonging to a
nation state that pre-existed.
It's like the native people ofHawaii.
That's why the use of the wordsubjugation and not violation,
and not unconstitutional and notinjury and not harm.
(40:25):
Please hear me out, my brothersand sisters.
The words matter that we use.
I'm talking international lawlevel.
Have y'all any questions beforeI go on?
Do you have any questions?
Speaker 1 (40:45):
You got any questions , Mike.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
No, I'm actually listening.
It sounds like you know.
It sounds like a college course.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
Well, that's the purpose, because I have to teach
, you have to teach.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
He's saying the power of the language, the words, and
you know subjugation andeverything else.
You hear the rootness ofetymology and everything else
that he's saying legal terms,yes.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
And how I'm being very meticulous, absolute detail
Cause you I have to be, andparticularly in giving
instructions and and explainingwell, and I'm not, and I'm not
(41:33):
saying well, don't, don't saythat I got to explain.
Why not to say it?
Why not to use unconstitutional?
Why not to say unlawful?
Why not to say illegal?
Why not to say, you know,illegal, unlawful, why not to
say injury, all right, becausethat they don't apply to a, it
(41:56):
doesn't invoke the concept andthe principle that would apply
to a whole nation of people.
That's been what.
Subjugated by a state, we're nottalking.
I mean you're being and we'rebeing, our people being injured
(42:17):
by people, by people, but no bya state.
China injuring the you know,the French people.
China subjugating the people ofFrance.
I'm just going to give examplesnow.
China subjugating the people ofFrance.
(42:38):
China, a state, subjugating thepeople of France.
The people of France belong toa state France.
Or Germany subjugating theRussian people.
The Russian people belonged toa state, russia.
So that's what that invokes.
You wouldn't say China isviolating the people of France.
(43:03):
No, no, no, no, no.
It's subjugation when you'retalking about a whole nation of
people, the entire nation.
That's called subjugation ininternational law.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
Now are you saying a state or are you saying state
State?
Speaker 2 (43:23):
S-T-A state.
A state S-T-A-N, s-t-a-tA-State, s-t-a-n, s-t-a-t-e A
state is an international person.
International law China's astate A-State, s-s, not S-State,
not S-State A-State.
France is a state, germany is astate.
(43:43):
In international law, themodern, the modern constructive
meaning and I'm going to explainthe modern constructive meaning
that's used today.
That's been used for since, uh,since um 1648, since 1648, the
modern definition of statethat's been used in
(44:08):
international law is aninternational person.
How did this modern definitioncome about?
I'm glad you asked the question.
His name is Hugo van Groot.
Hugo van Groot was a Dutch, aDutch jurist, international
jurist.
In the late 1500s.
(44:30):
He constructed the moderndefinition that's used in United
Nations, that was used by theLeague of Nations, that's used
by all these nation states.
He constructed that definition.
That definition was adopted atthe at the Peace of Westphalia.
(44:53):
The conference was Westphalia,that ended the 30 year war, and
so the conference met from 1644to 1648 and at that conference
they adopted Hugo von Grupp'sdefinition of state and applied
(45:15):
that within the treaty calledthe Peace of Westphalia, which
is part of modern internationallaw.
I'm being very detailed.
As Brother Mike said, he hearsetymology, he hears the
semantics, he hears the.
You know how you know how aparticular word came about.
(45:36):
You know exactly.
That's important that we, thatwe, that we teach that, because
meanings don't just come out ofthin air.
There's various meanings are.
There's different meanings thatare constructed over the period
of time, just like the wordsovereign.
The word sovereign has beengiven several constructed
(45:59):
meanings over the period of 500years, from 13 through the.
1300s has one meaning.
1400s has a different meaning.
1500ss has one meaning.
1400s has a different meaning.
1500s has a different meaning.
1600 has a different meaning.
1700 has a different meaning.
(46:20):
So I just want to offer.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
You know, because I'm going to always, I'm going to
bring my etymology and semanticsknowledge to the always to the
platform.
Got you Okay?
So now, as far as how to studyand think right, dealing with
international law and just lawin your country, you have to
think in separate ways the wayyou're explaining it, right,
(46:50):
because certain words meancertain things in different
arenas and law.
So how do you?
How do you?
I mean, this is like a studythat you have to stay on top of
to really understand and beproficient at explaining
yourself when in these differentarenas now.
Speaker 2 (47:12):
But, brother ron, you're talking what?
All right, I'm glad youmentioned that.
You're talking um what I wastalking about, not you're
talking different meanings indifferent arenas.
Right, I wasn't talkingdifferent meanings in different
arenas.
Right, I wasn't talkingdifferent meanings in different
arenas.
I was talking differentmeanings in different time
(47:33):
periods.
Okay, I'm glad you mentionedthat so we can articulate I want
to, I want to.
I want the audience to hear me.
This is great.
Thank you for for saying that,because it it it gives me
opportunity to explain what youwere saying and what I'm saying.
We're saying two differentthings, but we're going to bring
(47:55):
it together.
You're talking about differentmeanings and different arenas.
I was talking about differentmeanings during different time
periods.
I mentioned the word sovereign.
The meaning of the wordsovereign, the meaning of the
word sovereign, has differentmeanings during the different
centuries.
So during the 1300s, there's adifferent meaning for it.
(48:18):
Then a different meaning wasconstructed.
During the 1500s, 1400s, adifferent meaning was
constructed.
During the 1500s, a differentmeaning was constructed.
During the 1500s, a differentmeaning was constructed during
the 1600s.
So that's different.
Those are different meaningsduring different time periods.
You're correct on what you'resaying about different meanings
(48:42):
on different levels.
So we want the audience to knowboth Different meanings during
different time periods,different meanings in different
levels.
Absolutely Okay.
This is people need thisknowledge.
Bro, I mean brothers.
(49:04):
They need this knowledge.
They need to learn how to thinkepistemologically.
So what I'm doing is givingthem the the application of
etymology and semantics.
And how is being applied inthese arenas that we're not
aware of?
Speaker 1 (49:26):
of so.
Being that words change in time, do they still matter in the
future?
So let's say if it was Okay, soyou got it.
Speaker 2 (49:39):
I got you Come on.
Come on, Please Come on, comeon.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
So let's say, a word came out and the definition came
out in 1930.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Does it still apply in 2025?
Oh, I love, I can hug you.
Oh, I can thank you.
You bring the best out of me.
Thank you, I need that.
Yes, now you know me anybodywho knows me I will never say
yes if I can't support it.
If I say yes, you already knowthat I can support it.
All right, there's an article,the original meaning of the
(50:14):
Commerce Clause by Randy Barnett, the original meaning of the
Commerce Clause by Randy Barnettand doing the there.
In that article you'll see thatduring a court case, supreme
(50:37):
Court case, where they usedJohnson's dictionary 1700s,
johnson's dictionary, written inthe 1700s, used to define the
word commerce.
So you're absolutely correct,because etymology is the history
, origin and too many words.
(51:02):
I'm going to continue.
You have two principles ofconstitutional interpretation
Originalists andconstructionalists.
An originalist would be me.
I would be an originalist.
I mean that the type, themeaning in which, the type, that
(51:25):
you interpret the Constitutionor interpret a passage and use
the meaning at the time in whichit was interpreted.
So that means you'll get booksduring the time period in which
it was interpreted.
You get dictionaries at thetime period in which the word
(51:46):
was and which it was drafted.
You get dictionaries, you getliterature at the time period in
which it was drafted, aconstructionist would be.
Well, society changes, so weneed to construct new meanings.
That's what's called aconstructionist, a originalist
(52:10):
and a constructionalist, andyou'll see that there are cases
where they use.
In fact, for a period of 100years, up until the early 1900s,
the Supreme Court justices usedetymology as a basis of their
(52:33):
interpretation.
What changed?
I'm glad you asked thatquestion, presidents.
What happens?
And Randy Barnett?
Happens and Randy Barnett.
I learned this by reading theoriginal meaning of the Commerce
Clause by Randy Barnett, aconstitutional lawyer who's a
(52:53):
professor at GeorgetownUniversity where Patrick Ewing
went.
And so I learned a lot frombecause I actually studied that
I don't just read, I studied, Ididn't read it Just, you know,
(53:16):
popcorn, I don't do that, Idon't do, I don't know what that
is, I don't do casual reading,I'm analyzing, studying it.
So that's why I can speak likethis on it, because I've, you
know, took it apart and analyzed.
And so what he?
In that article?
He explained that how.
(53:39):
Because you know how ithappened, where, during a period
of you know how it changed fromoriginalist constructionists.
Well, presidents, during aperiod of you know how it
changed from originalist toconstructionist.
Well, presidents, you know youwould have presidents, you know,
because you know presidents canappoint, you know, justices.
So a justice dies or retires,so a president, you know will
(54:02):
get a judge.
You know, nominate a judge whois a constructionist or a
visionist.
You may have for a period of,say, 30 straight years where you
have United States presidentswho are constructionist mindset
(54:27):
when they're doing theirpresidency.
There's a vacant seat in theSupreme Court.
He explained that because youknow, because you, nothing just
happens.
So he explained the process.
I said, oh, so we, I read that.
I said it opened up a lot ofportals.
I said, oh, my goodness, thisis deep.
(54:48):
I said, wow, I learned so muchby reading because I didn't have
a concept of originalconstructionalist.
I didn't even know about thatuntil reading that article.
Speaker 3 (55:02):
Yeah, that you just bust our heads open, because you
know what's so great about it.
That comment being said, I lookback at every presidential race
.
They may focus on the votes,but they always focus on the
seats of the judge who gets themost, and I'm like yo to see how
they would maneuver around thelaw whatever they can do, and
(55:23):
just now we're seeing that law,find Trump's presidency.
That's it.
It's just that his focus wasthe Supreme Court seats.
That's what he's focused on.
Like I got to get the sentence,I got to get the judges, you
know, and that's all he did.
So that's how he's maneuveringaround the law, like that they
(55:43):
label him the king because hefigured it out Exactly.
Speaker 2 (55:46):
Because they apply what?
What they do, because theyapply what they do, because they
apply a particularconstitutional interpretation,
once again, originalist,constructionalist.
So it's the.
This hit me on.
My brothers and sisters, youhave constitutional
(56:06):
interpretation methods.
It matters which one isemployed.
Let me give you another case.
In the Foster versus Nielsen.
This is Foster versus Nielsenand this was based off the
interpretation of the 18, 18treaty between Spain and the
(56:31):
United States.
That's when.
That was when that in thattreaty, spain ceded Florida to
United States in 1818, 1818treaty.
So it was Spain.
Spain granted land grant.
Spain granted Spanish landgrants to Spanish subjects in
(56:53):
Florida.
So the argument was that theydid.
Spain ceded the land to UnitedStates before this particular
land grant was granted.
The person made the claim thathe would be protected under the
(57:14):
treaty because Spain still hadcontrol of the land when it was
granted the land grant.
So in Foster v Nielsen, theEnglish version of the treaty
was read Hit me out.
And so which was an error?
(57:38):
Why You'll learn.
That was an error in Thompsonversus United States and
Thompson, and no Purchman andPurchman versus Thompson and
Purchman versus Thompson.
They made it clear that thatwas an error.
(58:01):
And reading the English versionof the treaty was error.
Why?
Because the Spanish version ofthe treaty was error.
Why?
Because the Spanish version ofthe treaty gives a different
interpretation.
So they did.
And the Foster versus Nielsen,the international canning of the
principles of interpretationwas not applied.
But and I think it was UnitedStates versus Purchment, united
(58:25):
States versus Purchment, theinternational law, the
international canon, principles,interpretation was applied.
The Spanish version of thetreaty was read.
That was.
And my brothers and sisters, youknow I know I'm a nerd, but I
(58:47):
do that because I, so I can doit, I can educate, I, I do that
so I can educate.
I can give examples, I cananswer questions, I can give
references upon references.
As I answer questions, I'm notcoming out of thin air.
I can give cases, I can giveother references upon references
, answering questions.
So I'm showing them, give allthe references upon reference
(59:09):
and asking questions.
So I'm explaining, I'm showingthem the value of study.
How will everyone empower us?
Speaker 1 (59:17):
Real quick.
I just want to say this hey,mike Paul Dyer, you know what I
mean.
I got you I got you, bro, socontinue brother.
Yes, Before I continue do y'allhave any?
Speaker 2 (59:28):
I?
Speaker 1 (59:28):
got you bro, alright so continue, brother.
Speaker 2 (59:29):
Yes, alright, before I continue, do y'all have any
questions?
Cause we're all tying this into it, all ties into the topic,
because the topic is aboutdehumanization, the use of color
(59:49):
and race.
But that is through what?
Through social engineering,through constructing a new, a
false paradigm, and socialengineering, a false paradigm,
you know, to and to the society.
So we're talking language, sothe language discussion is
(01:00:11):
paramount, absolutely, we're noteven, we're not even off the
topic, cause I, so yourquestions, your questions, you
know, cause your questions, youknow Allie bought value, further
value to the discussion.
Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Now let me ask you this To study the proper way to
study to like really understandnot only English, but the way to
present yourself, write letters, documents and things like that
, to proper present yourself.
How should we study to be?
(01:00:49):
You know what I mean To be Allright.
Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
So it is sorry.
So what and how one would studyis they would have to study
fields of study.
They would have to studygrammar.
They would have to.
You have to study.
This is how to study.
I'm great.
Good question Study grammar.
Well, how to study.
Good question study grammar.
Grammar is the building block toreading comprehension, because
(01:01:18):
if you're studying, you'rereading, but can you analyze
what you're reading?
Can you break, can you break itup to its component parts?
Do you know the principles ofgrammar, as grammar is the
building block to readingcomprehension.
So, so, so, and I wouldn't give, like you say, give
(01:01:43):
instructions to study.
It would be grammar, it wouldbe etymology, it would be
grammar, it would be etymology,it would be semantics, it would
be fields of study that wouldaid one into studying.
Not a class on how to study.
Let me explain why.
(01:02:03):
Not a class on how to study?
Because there's no value inthat.
Let me explain.
There's no value in that.
Let me explain.
There's no value in that.
Someone who doesn't know grammar, how would a class?
Are someone who is poor ingrammar, how would a class on
how to study me?
You're not teaching grammar.
You're not teaching themgrammar.
(01:02:23):
How would a class on how tostudy help them?
Grammar is very important.
I study grammar and I teachgrammar.
I'm not saying grammar.
I study grammar and I teachgrammar basic and advanced
grammar.
That I do know.
I know the value of grammar andhow it aids in reading
(01:02:47):
comprehension.
So if they're poor grammar andyou ain't teaching them grammar,
how are you teaching them howto study?
All right, let me give anexample.
Let me give an example, ron.
There's something just basic.
(01:03:11):
Ron threw the ball.
Ron threw the ball.
Who threw the ball?
Ron, right, what did Ron throw?
So, ron, is the subject ThroughPast tense, because that gives
(01:03:36):
you time.
Past tense, not present tense,not future tense.
Alright, so now we're lookingat what Tense, now Time tense.
What did he throw?
Ball?
Was it the direct object?
Now I ask this question whendid Ron throw the ball?
Speaker 1 (01:04:01):
he threw the ball in the past, but when?
Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
in the past.
So where did he throw the?
So where did he throw the ball?
Where did Ron throw the ball?
Speaker 1 (01:04:15):
You got me a little stumped.
I'm kind of pardon me.
Pardon me more.
I'm trying to set up the nextinterview.
Speaker 2 (01:04:22):
No problem, I got you yes, so let me.
So the answer.
So the answer.
The answer is that theinformation is not provided.
When, why did he throw it?
Where did he throw it?
The information is not provided.
All is provided is that whatdid Ron throw A ball?
Not when, not where, not how,right.
(01:04:47):
So that's in grammar.
So we can give that informationwith grammar how he threw it,
where he threw it, the time, andthat's grammar, that's through
the knowledge of grammar.
So someone who has a poorknowledge of grammar, that's
studying.
I'm just giving a and I thankyou, brother Ron.
Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
So that means the words have a significant value?
Yes, However, without thegrammar you can't really hold
the words.
Speaker 2 (01:05:26):
Thank you, thank you.
That's Professor Burton, thewords.
Thank you, thank you.
That's Professor Burton, theone who taught me.
You sound like him.
He said that.
He said exactly that, professorBurton.
My etymology professor saidexactly that.
I remember I was at ProfessorBurton's house.
I was at Professor Burton'shouse, this was 1990, my first
(01:05:50):
semester of 1998.
I was at his house October,november, 1998.
And I said Professor Burton, Iwant to improve my reading
comprehension.
He says, yeah, you do itthrough grammar.
(01:06:10):
I think no, we were.
I think I was studying grammarat the time.
This was my, this was thesecond semester with Professor
Byrne, so it was 1999.
And he said yeah, you're doingit by studying grammar.
I said what he said.
Yeah, he said you can improveyour reading by studying grammar
.
I said what man?
(01:06:32):
And guess what?
He was right and he saidexactly what you said, because
he emphasized the importance ofgrammar and the value of it.
Remember it's etymologyteaching.
(01:06:53):
He said how you said it.
He said it just like that.
He sure did.
Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
So studying grammar is key Absolutely, and knowing
where to put the words thatthat's all a part of grammar.
Speaker 2 (01:07:11):
Absolutely, absolutely All right.
So if you want to convey athought, absolutely, uh, brother
Ron, all right.
Now you want to convey athought on paper, what don't you
have to use grammar now to putto convey a thought?
You have to use to even speakit.
To speak it, you're usinggrammar to interpret, using the
(01:07:39):
principles of grammar.
Run through the ball, runthrough the ball.
I just want to do somethingthat's simple, because you got
to get something that's simple,but I can, like I said I asked
the question where did Ron throwthe ball?
The answer is not provided.
(01:07:59):
The answer is not provided,information is not provided,
right, but I'm saying that youcan construct that, ron, through
grammar, right, you can add, Ican add an adverbial clause of
time.
And verbial clause of time, Ican add an adverb, I mean so how
did he throw the ball?
That's an adverb, you know.
Add an adverb.
How do you throw the ball?
That's an adverb, a singleadverb.
(01:08:24):
You can add clauses, a verbalclause of time.
When you're proficient in thegrammar, you can dance it, you
can make it dance, you can breakit dance.
You can break sentences apart.
My brothers and sisters, I didnot know I could not break down
(01:08:49):
long sentences.
I remember when I started I metTasha in October 1993.
And in the older lawdictionaries, in the Black's Law
dictionaries, in the older oneI started I met Tasha Rebae in
October 1993.
And in the older lawdictionaries, in the Black's Law
dictionaries in the older one,the fourth edition, third
edition they have long sentences, the definitions, they have
long sentences.
(01:09:10):
I had a difficulty in readinglong sentences, not now.
What helped me Grammar?
By studying clauses that nowclauses, adjective clauses,
adverbial clauses, phrases,germans, participles,
(01:09:30):
infinitives.
Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
Now, this is where, this is where sentence structure
go ahead, ron, right this iswhere I, personally, I would say
, believe our peoples, moorsthat call themselves black,
right.
Yes, being that, I would say,black culture.
(01:09:52):
What's ingrained in blackculture is slang, and this is, I
think, what keeps us behind,because it perpetuates bad
grammar, poor speaking, etcetera, and in order for you to
really hone in on the skill ofspeaking well, you have to speak
(01:10:17):
it all the time.
Speaker 2 (01:10:19):
You got to practice it, you got gotta do it.
I mean absolutely.
You gotta do it, I meanabsolutely.
Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
I think the slang further perpetuates the Negro
state of mind and legal.
You know what they call a civillittle mortals.
Speaker 2 (01:10:42):
Absolutely, and we don't control anything.
So we can't afford to be thatway.
Right, that's not.
(01:11:02):
That doesn't that continues tooppress us, right?
Okay, you know they like saidto subjugate keeps us in a
subject that perpetuates thesubjugation state right now.
Speaker 1 (01:11:08):
I want to know how did this happen?
Like we're slaying and beingthugs and dark thinking and
speaking and negativity.
How did that become such aanchor in our community?
Was that designed because itall kind of like came together
(01:11:32):
at a certain period for lack ofa better term like maybe around,
maybe like the 80s?
Speaker 2 (01:11:38):
there was a.
There was a meeting in 1990.
There was a in the mid-80s.
I'm going to back up then.
I'll go to the meeting.
In the mid-80s the prisons wereprivatized.
It all ties in to answeringyour question.
The prisons were privatized andso that so the corporations got
(01:12:02):
a, have a contract with thestates and the states are in the
contract.
There are, there arestipulations, there's conditions
, stipulations the states areobligated to keep the prisons
full.
Stipulations the states areobligated to keep the prisons
full.
The states were breaching theircontract by not keeping the
(01:12:25):
prisons full.
So the master plan was thatmeeting 1990 with rappers.
They didn't attack heavy metal,they did not attack heavy metal
.
They did not attack heavy metal.
They did not attack hard rock.
They attack rap.
(01:12:47):
Keep in mind, they attack rap.
There was a meeting in 1990.
Some rappers were there.
That was so to what To put thecriminal element into rap.
Some rappers were there thatwas so to what To put the
criminal element into rap.
That was planned.
They had no choice you rap this, no, you rap this, or you don't
(01:13:11):
rap at all.
You rap this or you don't rapat all.
So the brothers are not lyingwhen they say well, I had to do
it because you have brothersthat say that used to have
interviews Rappers.
Absolutely, they ain't lying.
That was the plan.
So that was to criminalize rapmusic, to put that hard criminal
(01:13:37):
element, to implant that in ourchildren with that criminology.
That's how that.
That's that, you see, becauseyou said in the 80s and I'm here
, you're right.
So that was a strong, concertedeffort.
Nothing just happens, that wasby planned land.
Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
Now someone said, speaking on slang, can you
explain connotative anddenotative?
Speaker 2 (01:14:09):
Yes, there are scholars.
All right, let me do it thisway first, and then I'll go into
that.
There are scholars.
Denotation, denote, so it meansmark, point, so to mark.
(01:14:32):
So you mark or designate, markor designate, mark or designate
Glasses, eyeglasses.
So eyeglasses is the term.
(01:14:54):
So you have the thought, theobject, all right, and the words
.
You have the thought, the wordand the object.
So this is the word iseyeglasses.
The object is what I'm holdingin my hand.
(01:15:16):
I say what does the wordglasses denote?
What does the word glassesdenote?
What does the word glassesdenote?
And someone says what does theword eyeglasses denote?
And someone says eyeglasses.
That's the wrong answer.
You said the word eyeglasses.
All you had to do was point toit, because the word eyeglasses
(01:15:40):
does not denote the wordeyeglasses.
All you had to do was point toit, because the word eyeglasses
does not denote the wordeyeglasses.
The word eyeglasses denote whatI'm holding in my hand.
Just point to it.
Just point to it.
It means you're pointing to itTo designate, to mark.
Okay.
So let me explain connotation.
Connotation is figurative, likeyou are you.
(01:16:03):
So we're looking at um, let'ssay rock, and, and the actual
object rock.
So you have the word rock andthe object rock.
So they, the word rock denotesthe object rock, so the word
rock denotes the object rock.
Now we're talking connotation.
(01:16:25):
Ron is a rock.
Well, we know that Ron is not aactual rock.
So I'm using rock connotatively, associative meaning, strength.
So the associative meaning.
So rock is hard, you know.
(01:16:45):
So I'm using an associative orconnotative meaning and applying
that to Ron's character, to Ronis a rock and that is a.
That is what's known as ametaphor.
(01:17:06):
A simile would be the use oflike or as Ron is as a rock or
like a rock.
That's a simile.
A metaphor is Ron is a rock.
Now, what's the differencebetween a simile, a metaphor is
Ron is a rock.
Now, what's the differencebetween a simile and metaphor?
When you use a metaphor, as inRon is a rock, that is, his
(01:17:29):
character, is strongly resembles, that is of a rock, that's hard
and strong, strongly strong,Whereas Ron is like a rock, it's
not, as it's not as strong.
You know, if I really want tomake my point of describing
(01:17:52):
Ron's character from a strongpoint, I will use a metaphor,
not a simile.
See, I'm not just metaphor, nota simile.
See, I'm not just explainingwhat I can explain why.
Speaker 1 (01:18:04):
Okay, okay, all right .
People in the chat, y'allfollowing this, y'all following
this.
You got to pay attention.
You can't be watching TV andwatching.
Oh, no, no, they don't want towatch no TV while I'm on.
Ok so now?
(01:18:24):
Great, great explanation, greatdemonstration.
Now we, we are going to closeout now.
However, we'd love to have youcome back on and keep explaining
this.
Speaker 2 (01:18:41):
I'm going to be every second and fourth Wednesday.
I have other people that willcome with me, and Brother Israel
Bay and Brother King El Bay andBrother Viserious Ill.
I'll do the next one, I'll do,I'll.
Actually, I might do the nextone.
I might do the next one withBrother Israel.
(01:19:02):
Brother Israel and I will dothe next one together.
That'll be the fourth Wednesday.
Speaker 1 (01:19:08):
Right, so check, check, check, check.
I hope y'all got what thebrother displayed today.
Now we understand who we haveon the check-in every second and
fourth and fourth Wednesday.
Wednesday is all aboutetymology, grammar words, et
cetera.
Speaker 2 (01:19:26):
International law.
Speaker 1 (01:19:27):
International law.
Speaker 2 (01:19:28):
Jurisprudence, legal principles yes, I got some heavy
hitters with me.
I got some heavy hitters.
Speaker 1 (01:19:34):
Indeed.
Thank you, brother, for comingout this evening.
We really appreciate you.
See y'all.
On Friday we have a live fromthe 5% Nation, wise Asia.
She's coming up to tell herstory.
Saturday we got the Moorishbrother Sha'el on Saturday.
Sunday we got brother EricMuhammad from the Nation of
(01:19:58):
Islam.
Thank you for coming out thisevening, brother Abdullah, and
we are out of here.
Peace, peace you.
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!