Words as Weapons: Dehumanization Through Race and Color

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.

Fit, Healthy & Happy Podcast
Welcome to the Fit, Healthy and Happy Podcast hosted by Josh and Kyle from Colossus...

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Chapters

• 20:14 [Ad] Fit, Healthy & Happy Podcast
• 20:53 (Cont.) Words as Weapons: Dehumanization Through Race and Color

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:17

all right, all right, all right. What's going on? What's going on? Everybody out there is ron brown 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 Bay in the building Round of applause. Thanks to everybody in the chat right now. Two people in the chat. I really appreciate those two people. Make yourself known. If that's a bin, let me know. If that's awareness daily, let me 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 dehumanization through race and color. And if you could break down your title, your title, explain your title before we go into it.

Speaker 2: 1:14

Before I speak, my name no, your title.

Speaker 1: 1:16

How Race and Color have Been Used. Oh, my title.

Speaker 2: 1:19

You know what I got you? Well, that is, that'll be done during the course. But, yeah, so the dehumanization 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 constructive meaning that's been given to the word color, and how this false thought paradigm has dehumanized us as a people. Meaning has actually removed our national characteristics. So I'm going to definitely get into that in more detail as we go through the podcast. Okay.

Speaker 1: 2:16

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, I think 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 of your material downstairs. I wish I would have brought it up, man, damn. Uh, very helpful etymology book. He's the author of a few books and also classes. I've taken classes with him there, building about etymology and breaking down words. More history, more science what else, I think?

Speaker 2: 3:03

the astronomy or what they call what they was. People call Masonic symbols OK, actually measurement tools and devices, but I actually explained the astronomical use application of them. That's in my book the Masonic Compens Square and the Connection to Measurement and Timekeeping, Nice.

Speaker 1: 3:26

Now also, I think you were in attendance when we did with me and Knowledge Eternal from the Clock of Destiny, also 5% Nation, when we had a unity rally between it was Roz there, Nakeem Bay there, Jelani there. It was Roz there, Nakeem Bay there, Jelani there, man C Ferguson, Ill from the Kirkman Bay faction, and I think you were in attendance there. We were in a Masonic Lodge. We went upstairs yeah, I was there. Yeah, that was way back in the day. That was yes. Yeah, that was way back in the day. Yeah, that was yes. Yeah, that was way back. But now fast forward 2025, I'm still doing the work, but now I'm doing the work virtually, You're still doing the work.

Speaker 2: 4:15

brother, greatly appreciate your steadfastness, your commitment and your humanitarian love that you have for our people.

Speaker 1: 4:26

Indeed, same same to you, brother. Really appreciate you. Now let's just talk about your history a little bit, and then we'll go more into the podcast. So now, from what I remember, you're from Philadelphia.

Speaker 2: 4:42

Camden. I live in Philly, but I'm born and raised across the bridge.

Speaker 1: 4:46

Camden. Ok, you were born and raised in Camden and you moved to Philadelphia. And what was your upbringing like? How did you end up in moral science in that that world?

Speaker 2: 5:00

Well, I was always curious about, Well, I was always curious about, you know, where words came from. You know, I remember because I've been studying etymology since 1998, and I recall, when I was seven, eight years old, you know, staring out my window and just wondering, and I remember asking this question to myself where did the word tree come from? And it's just so fitting that I study etymology now and I'm seven, eight years old, I'm asking the question to myself where did the word tree come from? Why is it called a tree? Years old, I'm asking the question to myself where did the word tree come from? You know, why is it called a tree? You know, and I would you know? And I'm like, wow, so I was, I was always curious and, um, one of my favorite um subjects was English. You know, when I was in school, I was a a decent speller. I used to win, I used to place high in. I was in school, I was a decent speller, I used to place high in spelling bees in school, and so that was.

Speaker 2: 6:15

I was among Europeans, a lot of Europeans, when I from ninth grade, from ninth grade all the way to graduate school, Because I went to a predominantly European high school. I was bused. I took the bus to go to school. I didn't go to high school in Camden, I went to Canada Catholic Cherry Hill High School. The reason why it's called Canada Catholic Cherry Hill High School is because it was in Camden. It burned down and they relocated to Cherry Hill High School. Because it was in Camden and it burned down and they relocated to Cherry Hill. So I was among a lot of Europeans from high school, from ninth grade to graduate school.

Speaker 1: 6:58

Okay, so how was that experience Going to school with a lot of Europeans where there's racism there, and maybe that sparked your interest to think. You know, delve more into like history and things like that.

Speaker 2: 7:13

Yeah, what I? What I observed with Is that the Europeans kept to themselves and the more is classified as black kept to themselves. It was that. So we hung out. Moors classified as black hung out. It was about 90% European and 10% more classified as nickel-colored black. So it wasn't where it was. 99 10% more classified as nickel colored black Right. Okay, yeah, so it wasn't where. It was 99.5% European, it was like about 10% of us and 90% of them.

Speaker 1: 7:57

Got you. So there was some kind of racial tension at points.

Speaker 2: 8:02

At times you had, you had more as classified as Puerto Ricans, more classified as Blacks they were at that time they would say race riots, you know, there would be Blacks against Puerto Ricans, right, you know, type thing. That went on too, because there was a few years, like I said, it was like I said it was like I said the 10% was more classified as Black and Puerto Ricans and the 90% was Europeans Got you, got you and around that time we're talking around what time period that?

Speaker 2: 8:40

was 19,. That was 80, 83 to 87. 83 to 87. I was in high school. College from 87 to 91. Graduate school from 91 to 93.

Speaker 1: 8:58

What college did you go to?

Speaker 2: 9:00

Glassboro State College, now Rowan University. Then I went on to the grad grad records university, graduate school, social work in new Brunswick, New.

Speaker 1: 9:10

Jersey, nice, okay. So uh, uh, what did you major in?

Speaker 2: 9:17

I sociology and then I got a master's in social work at the graduate school of sociology Nice that's peace.

Speaker 1: 9:27

So you know I always ask this question because you know I don't want to sound like a broken record, but you know, I know, like me personally, I was impacted by the crack era in the 80s and the 90s. So did you experience that part of history and you know that era?

Speaker 2: 9:46

not, so I was. My mother was strict and so she was on curfew. I remember I gotta tell this story. Don't laugh at me. It's true. So don't laugh. Y'all don't laugh because my students laughed at me. You know what I mean. My students would laugh when I substituted. They would laugh because they could be out in ninth grade and they can hang out at 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock in the morning. I'm like whoa what? My curfew my 12th, my senior and they can hang out at 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock in the morning. I'm like whoa, what. My curfew my senior in high school was 10 o'clock. My senior I'm 18 years old Senior 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. 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.

Speaker 2: 11:13

My mom is standing at the door with a belt wow 18 years old, senior in high school and just about to graduate from high school. Two months or three months from graduation, I was dating a sister and I was late, 10 months late. My mom did not play, and you know what I appreciate that, I appreciate that I do Right, she didn't get it. Yes, I wanted to. I had to, you know, wanted to convey that story. It's a true story. My brother and sister I am not making 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, and my stepfather as well, but they were, yeah. That's how that epitomizes how I 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, being very focused, that was I was reared that way, absolutely From early age. You know, I didn't become disciplined and focused when I became an adult. That was I was raised to be that 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, I know you guys see me, you know, hit your the ad, the friend. I'm trying to friend you guys on Facebook. So that's me, that's me, that's me. So now let's go into it, now that we have a brief history. I'm sure you know they want to hear what you have to say about the dehumanization through race and color. However, you want to set that off race and color.

Speaker 2: 13:29

However, however, you want to set that off. Yes, I want to set off by by asking 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 more classified as nigga color, black, african-american continue to push that. You know people you know more classified as nigger-colored, black African-American continue to push that. You know we gotta fight against racism. You know what I mean. You know never give up the fight against racism. You know what I mean. So we gotta stand against racism and that's been beaten in us, you know. Fight against racism. And now, so you know how you fight against racism. Oh, Teach the people the origin of the paradigm. This is dehumanizing paradigm. Let's go. So the fight against racism. I want to, because I want to take this angle that get 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 1684 going to help us fight against racism? Oh well, it'll give you. You'll give you the origin of this paradigm, of the paradigm New, the vision of the world. France wabiner, his new division of the earth, whereby he classified the human family using non-nationality, non-pedigree, non-consequentious, non-ancestral words black, white, red, brown and yellow. Black, white, red, brown and yellow. This is how you fight against racism by teaching the people the origin of the paradigm and how the paradigm steals our birthright, how it dehumanizes us. So, through that social engineering concept, beginning with Francois Bonner, with that structure, and then continued with and then further expanded by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and we. This is that was so.

Speaker 2: 16:33

You have Colonnais with his Systema Naturae and 12 editions from 1713 to 1732. Systema Naturae with 12 or 13 editions, 1713 to 1732. You have Johan he was a Swedish naturalist Francois Pernier. Francois Pernier was a French craniologist and he actually he lived in, he lived in India or Hindustan for nine years and he studied Francois Bonner. Going back to him, he studied the caste system, so he developed the concept upon my studied the caste system. So he developed the concept by studying the caste system of India. So he came and wrote the book the Invention of the Racial Classification, and that's where he came up. That's where he developed that new division of the earth in 1684.

Speaker 2: 17:48

This is how you fight against racism. I know it's a new for our people because they could. They lack the knowledge. It's only because they lack the knowledge of the origin of the paradigm. They think it's real black white. They think it's real Black White.

Speaker 2: 18:07

I remember when I was teaching and cammed in school and I was substituting, there was a I'm going to say this there was a more classified as nigger color black and he was from the. He was, he was. We had a guest be with the guest speaker and he was from Rutgers University Department of Human Relations, Department of Human Relations At Rutgers University, and I remember his saying. I was standing at the door, it was the fifth grade class, he was a guest speaker and I was standing in the back At the door and I remember his saying During the course of his presentation it doesn't matter what you call yourself Black, white, red, orange or purple, keep in mind Rutgers University, no, no, I'm sorry, foreign relations, I apologize, not human rights. Rutgers University, foreign relations department. I was heated man, I was singeing inside. You're from Rutgers University Foreign Relations Department and you say to here's the sort you say to the children it doesn't matter what you call yourself black, white, red, orange or purple and you've heard this before, y'all heard this, this ain't new, this is not new, that loosely saying, and no matter what you, who you are black, white, red, purple, orange See that social engineering.

Speaker 2: 20:13

Yeah, see, the dehumanization is done through social engineering. So with that social engineering, there's no thinking involved. There's no thinking. So people are not rationalizing it.

Speaker 2: 21:02

This is what's called operative conditioning, pavlov's dog. You think that they were just going to use that on animals? That they're going to use that. They use an animal for testing, to apply to humans. That's not just for animals, though. The operative conditioning where they use Pavlov's dog bell, they ring a bell, he salivates, ring a bell, salivates, but that was just the dog was just used for experimentation that they applied for in training humans and animals. So the operative conditioning of black, black, black, black Look, what color are you? Black? There's no thinking. Our people, they're not thinking, they're not rationalizing. It's training, it's operative conditioning. 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 about it. There's no thinking at all.

Speaker 2: 22:22

I had students will walk up to me as I taught nationality to over 5,000 students in a Kansas City public school. I ran my big mouth. I taught over 500 teachers, both Europeans and most classified in the color, black and classified Spanish teachers. I ran my big mouth, I didn't keep quiet. I was known for talking, I was known for teaching. So students would ask, and teaching the students about nationality and that of their, about nationality and that of their Moorish nationality, and teaching that black's not a nationality.

Speaker 2: 23:18

And then so, like I said, pavlov's dog. Again, operative conditioning there's no thinking. What do you mean? So I recall, students will walk up to me, to me, come out their seats, grab my arm. They would grab my arm, grab my wrist and hold my wrist to my face. Look at you, mr bay, look at you, you're black. Look at you. Look at you. Remember there's there's no thinking. See, now you're chuckling because you are aware You're thinking about it. Once again, go back to Pavlov's dog. 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. So I got it. So we.

Speaker 2: 24:25

That's a beautiful analogy right there.

Speaker 3: 24:28

I read about that in Na pardon, in naeem akbar's book breaking the psychological chains of slavery, when he spoke about the pavlo um concept. Absolutely, and that's something that's true, because you're trained basically out of your own natural element. Thank you like cognitive dissonance, cognitive dissonance, cognitive dissonance.

Speaker 2: 24:47

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 among conscious moors, which doesn't exist. I'm going to get on. I got you conscious't exist. I'm going to. I'm going to get on, I got you conscious moors, I'm going to get on y'all. I'm going to get on y'all. Conscious moors, yes, I am, I'm going to get on y'all. I can't get on unconscious moors because they don't know Exactly. So I got to get on conscious moors with this, this unity, with this unity trying to outdo each other. Come on now, 33 years now for me, 33 years of observation of seeing conscious mores trying to outdo each other, fighting each other and bashing each other and bashing each other. I mean, what happened? You hear me?

Speaker 3: 25:57

Yep, I hear you now.

Speaker 2: 25:59

I was trying. I hit the. I answered the call when I didn'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 the red. Yes, so we're going to need. We got to work together. You don't see that among conscious mores. You see, you know this, you know trying to outdo each other and who's better, and we got to move away from that.

Speaker 3: 26:35

I call it intellectual masturbation.

Speaker 2: 26:37

It's intellectual masturbation. Yes, there's a lot of that among conscious moors, man A lot of that and I've seen that for 33 years. And we have to man A lot of that and I've seen that for 33 years. And and I, I, you know, we, we gotta, we have to, we have to work through that, you know, and I and I reason, I'm mentioning that it ties into what I'm saying, because in order for us to connect with unconscious mores and teach them that, that, because it's because it's so strong that dehumanization, the Francois Bonner's paradigm is so embedded, so ingrained, it's going to take a united effort among conscious moors. You know, it's not just a few of us, it's going to take what we're working together and teaching, you know.

Speaker 2: 27:35

But yeah, somebody keep calling me, yeah, so let me continue. Let me continue with the lesson. So we have here Dr King. Dr King said he had a dream that one day my four little children will grow up and live in a world where they not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream. So his dream was be judged by the content of that character and not by the color of our skin.

Speaker 3: 28:25

Right.

Speaker 2: 28:27

Are we judged by our complexion? Really, really.

Speaker 2: 28:34

That's real Are we? Are we being mistreated merely because of our complexion? They hate us merely because of our complexion. They hate us merely because of our complexion. They hold us down merely because of complexion. They shoot us down merely because of our complexion. Meaning it's nothing else. It has nothing to do with anything else. It has nothing to do with that stone in our land. It has nothing to do with anything else. It has nothing to do with that stone in our land. It has nothing to do with that. They've buried our history. It has only to do with the complexion of our skin. Do they really believe that? Do conscious Moors truly in their hearts believe that? Do conscious moors truly in their hearts believe that? I don't. I don't think they believe that that's the party line.

Speaker 3: 29:39

They fear your greatness. I can tell you that.

Speaker 2: 29:42

Yeah, that's the, but I'm saying conscious moors. I'm raising the question do conscious, do you think conscious more I mean I conscious more Do you think unconscious mores classified as Negro colored, black, african-american, okay, truly in their hearts, believe that there are mistreatment Is solely because of our complexion? I don't, I don't think they believe that that's, that's, that's the party line, that's that, that's that racism push party line. But I don't think they. They can't exactly put their you know, they know something that we don't know our history. They do know that they don't know what the history is, but they know that there's a lacking of our history, knowledge of who we are, but that we're being judged by our complexion. That is definitely a misdirection, a cover-up, a disguise for the continuation of our subjugation. Let's look at Mariah Carey. I'm going to give up, mariah Carey. I'm going to give up.

Speaker 2: 31:09

Mariah Carey was on a show and she was asked a question. I'm going to let me go right to it now. Mariah Carey was asked a question. She was on a talk show and the host asked her this question what color are you? Mariah's answer In this country, black, really. She's answering. Really, in this country, black, really.

Speaker 2: 31:46

My mother's Irish. My mother is Irish, she is like the queen of Ireland. My father is black. He grew up in Harlem and served his country. His father's mother, my grandmother, is Venezuelan. So the word color, the etymology, mother is Venezuelan. So the word color, the etymology, that means the true meaning. And the legal meaning of the word color means to hide and conceal, disguise, fake, artificial, distinguished from that which is real.

Speaker 2: 32:35

How did the word color gain its constructive meaning of complexion, pigmentation, skin tone, shade or hue? And that there, pigmentation, skin tone, shade or hue. And that there you have this legal term people of color, color, people color. When someone looks like Donald Trump, they don't associate with that word color, they won't relate that word color to themselves. No one will say Donald Trump is a man of color. So is the constructive meaning complexion or a certain complexion? Is this constructive meaning for the word color just merely complexion or a certain complexion? Because no one would say Donald Trump is a man of color. Once again, social engineering, social engineering. I'm going to the social engineering aspect now. Let's go back. We're going back to that. Why don't people refer to Donald Trump as a man of color? Because the constructive meaning that has been applied to the word color is of a certain pigmentation that looked like of our pigmentation. They won't relate to that, so they'll say, donald Trump, don't have a color.

Speaker 1: 34:30

Now what does that implicate in the in law? What is the implications in law or socially when you are classified as a person of color?

Speaker 2: 34:45

So what it does is? It takes you out of the protection of law, it's dehumanizing, it affords you no international human rights recognition and protection. It so what it does. It makes you dead in the eyes of the law, similar to Mottus dead in the eyes of the law. So if you're talking human rights, you have to be what Of a nation, one of whom has a nationality, because a nationality ties a people to a nation state. So it actually keeps us in a subjugated, dehumanizing state.

Speaker 2: 35:51

And I want to continue to use the word subjugation. I'm going to tell you why I don't use the words loosely. I don't just use words randomly and loosely. I'm using the word subjugation to invoke international law. I won't say unlawful, why I'm going to explain why you will not hear me say unlawful, why I'm explaining why you will not hear me say unlawful, because saying unlawful doesn't invoke international law. And I'm going to continue to explain.

Speaker 2: 36:21

By using the word subjugation, not only am I invoking international law, subjugation applies to a nation of people that's been subjugated by another nation of people, by another nation. See. So by using the word subjugation, hear me out, my brothers and sisters please. By using the word subjugation, hear me out, my brothers and sisters, please. By using the word subjugation, I am identifying our people as belonging to a nation that's been subjugated. Let me give you an example Hawaii, the native people of Hawaii, united States. Hawaii, the native people of Hawaii, united States invaded Hawaii, the kingdom of Hawaii, in 1893. That's called, that's subjugation, subjugation. And then we're talking international law. Subjugation in international law establishes a new title. So we won't say I will not say, because I know international law United States is violating the people, the native people of Hawaii. The United States is committing unlawful acts against the native people of Hawaii. The United States is committing unlawful acts against the native people of Hawaii. I will not use that language. United States is subjugating. It makes a difference Because when you use the word subjugation and invokes international law and that a state is subjugating a state, a state United States is subjugating a people, native Iwaki, that belongs to a state, king of Iwaki. That's why I have to explain why I'm using words. We're talking international law here. So I won't say unconstitutional, I won't say unlawful, I won't say violating international law, to invoke that and to identify the fact that our people belong to a preexisting nation that's been collapsed. It's important Hear me out. I'm explaining why. I'm explaining why this is why it's important for us to study international law. Don't use the word unconstitutional, don't use the word violated. Don't use the word violated. Don't use the word injured. Use the Pacific International Law language subjugation.

Speaker 2: 39:21

Look it up. I want y'all, I don't want people to say Abdul Abay said anything. Look up the word subjugation. Get international law books.

Speaker 2: 39:32

Oppenheim, get the Oppenheims H-O-P-P-E-N-H-E-I-M, volumes one and volumes two. You want to go to volume two because that's the law of war. Volume one is the law of peace, volume two is the law of war, so it'll be in volume two. Subjugation, loss of sovereignty is the law of war, so it'll be in volume two. Subjugation, loss of sovereignty, post-luminium military occupation, occupation, conquest, annexation. And when you see, when you see subjugation, it's not when I'm, where. It applies to an individual. Subjugation Does not, would not apply To Brother Ron alone. Subject the word Subjugation Would apply to Ron and his people as a whole Belonging to a Nation state that preexisted. Would apply to Ron and his people as a whole belonging to a nation state that pre-existed. It's like the native people of Hawaii. That's why the use of the word subjugation and not violation, and not unconstitutional and not injury and not harm. Please hear me out, my brothers and sisters. The words matter that we use. I'm talking international law level. Have y'all any questions before I go on? Do you have any questions?

Speaker 1: 41:15

You got any questions, Mike.

Speaker 3: 41:18

No, I'm actually listening. It sounds like you know. It sounds like a college course.

Speaker 2: 41:24

Well, that's the purpose, because I have to teach, you have to teach.

Speaker 3: 41:30

He's saying the power of the language, the words, and you know subjugation and everything else. You hear the rootness of etymology and everything else that he's saying legal terms, yes.

Speaker 2: 41:42

And how I'm being very meticulous, absolute detail Cause you I have to be, and particularly in giving instructions and and explaining well, and I'm not, and I'm not saying well, don't, don't say that 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, because that they don't apply to a, it doesn't invoke the concept and the principle that would apply to a whole nation of people. That's been what.

Speaker 2: 42:37

Subjugated by a state, we're not talking. I mean you're being and we're being, our people being injured by people, by people, but no by a state. China injuring the you know, the French people. China subjugating the people of France. I'm just going to give examples now. China subjugating the people of France. China, a state, subjugating the people of France. The people of France belong to a state France. Or Germany subjugating the Russian people. The Russian people belonged to a state, russia. So that's what that invokes. You wouldn't say China is violating the people of France. No, no, no, no, no. It's subjugation when you're talking about a whole nation of people, the entire nation. That's called subjugation in international law.

Speaker 1: 43:48

Now are you saying a state or are you saying state State?

Speaker 2: 43:53

S-T-A state. A state S-T-A-N, s-t-a-t A-State, s-t-a-n, s-t-a-t-e A state is an international person. International law China's a state A-State, s-s, not S-State, not S-State A-State. France is a state, germany is a state. In international law, the modern, the modern constructive meaning and I'm going to explain the modern constructive meaning that's used today. That's been used for since, uh, since um 1648, since 1648, the modern definition of state that's been used in international law is an international person. How did this modern definition come about? I'm glad you asked the question. His name is Hugo van Groot. Hugo van Groot was a Dutch, a Dutch jurist, international jurist. In the late 1500s. He constructed the modern definition that's used in United Nations, that was used by the League of Nations, that's used by all these nation states. He constructed that definition. That definition was adopted at the at the Peace of Westphalia. The conference was Westphalia, that ended the 30 year war, and so the conference met from 1644 to 1648 and at that conference they adopted Hugo von Grupp's definition of state and applied that within the treaty called the Peace of Westphalia, which is part of modern international law.

Speaker 2: 45:54

I'm being very detailed. As Brother Mike said, he hears etymology, he hears the semantics, he hears the. You know how you know how a particular word came about. You know exactly. That's important that we, that we, that we teach that, because meanings don't just come out of thin air. There's various meanings are. There's different meanings that are constructed over the period of time, just like the word sovereign. The word sovereign has been given several constructed meanings over the period of 500 years, 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. So I just want to offer.

Speaker 1: 46:58

You know, because I'm going to always, I'm going to bring my etymology and semantics knowledge to the always to the platform. Got you Okay? So now, as far as how to study and think right, dealing with international law and just law in your country, you have to think in separate ways the way you're explaining it, right, because certain words mean certain things in different arenas and law. So how do you? How do you? I mean, this is like a study that you have to stay on top of to really understand and be proficient at explaining yourself when in these different arenas now.

Speaker 2: 47:42

But, brother ron, you're talking what? All right, I'm glad you mentioned that. You're talking um what I was talking about, not you're talking different meanings in different arenas. Right, I wasn't talking different meanings in different arenas.

Speaker 2: 47:57

Right, I wasn't talking different meanings in different arenas. I was talking different meanings in different time periods. Okay, I'm glad you mentioned that 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 you were saying and what I'm saying. We're saying two different things, but we're going to bring it together. You're talking about different meanings and different arenas. I was talking about different meanings during different time periods. I mentioned the word sovereign.

Speaker 2: 48:37

The meaning of the word sovereign, the meaning of the word sovereign, has different meanings during the different centuries. So during the 1300s, there's a different meaning for it. Then a different meaning was constructed. During the 1500s, 1400s, a different meaning was constructed. During the 1500s, a different meaning was constructed. During the 1500s, a different meaning was constructed during the 1600s. So that's different. Those are different meanings during different time periods. You're correct on what you're saying about different meanings on different levels. So we want the audience to know both Different meanings during different time periods, different meanings in different levels. Absolutely Okay. This is people need this knowledge. Bro, I mean brothers. They need this knowledge. They need to learn how to think epistemologically. So what I'm doing is giving them the the application of etymology and semantics. And how is being applied in these arenas that we're not aware of?

Speaker 1: 49:56

of so. Being that words change in time, do they still matter in the future? So let's say if it was Okay, so you got it.

Speaker 2: 50:09

I got you Come on. Come on, Please Come on, come on.

Speaker 1: 50:12

So let's say, a word came out and the definition came out in 1930.

Speaker 2: 50:21

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 anybody who knows me I will never say yes if I can't support it. If I say yes, you already know that I can support it. All right, there's an article, the original meaning of the Commerce Clause by Randy Barnett, the original meaning of the Commerce Clause by Randy Barnett and doing the there. In that article you'll see that during a court case, supreme Court case, where they used Johnson's dictionary 1700s, johnson's dictionary, written in the 1700s, used to define the word commerce. So you're absolutely correct, because etymology is the history, origin and too many words. I'm going to continue.

Speaker 2: 51:35

You have two principles of constitutional interpretation Originalists and constructionalists. An originalist would be me. I would be an originalist. I mean that the type, the meaning in which, the type, that you interpret the Constitution or interpret a passage and use the meaning at the time in which it was interpreted. So that means you'll get books during the time period in which it was interpreted. You get dictionaries at the time period in which the word was and which it was drafted. You get dictionaries, you get literature at the time period in which it was drafted, a constructionist would be. Well, society changes, so we need to construct new meanings. That's what's called a constructionist, a originalist and a constructionalist, and you'll see that there are cases where they use. In fact, for a period of 100 years, up until the early 1900s, the Supreme Court justices used etymology as a basis of their interpretation.

Speaker 2: 53:06

What changed? I'm glad you asked that question, presidents. What happens? And Randy Barnett? Happens and Randy Barnett. I learned this by reading the original meaning of the Commerce Clause by Randy Barnett, a constitutional lawyer who's a professor at Georgetown University where Patrick Ewing went. And so I learned a lot from because I actually studied that I don't just read, I studied, I didn't read it Just, you know, popcorn, I don't do that, I don'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 like this on it, because I've, you know, took it apart and analyzed.

Speaker 2: 54:02

And so what he? In that article? He explained that how. Because you know how it happened, where, during a period of you know how it changed from originalist constructionists. Well, presidents, during a period of you know how it changed from originalist to constructionist. Well, presidents, you know you would have presidents, you know, because you know presidents can appoint, you know, justices. So a justice dies or retires, so a president, you know will get a judge. You know, nominate a judge who is a constructionist or a visionist. You may have for a period of, say, 30 straight years where you have United States presidents who are constructionist mindset when they're doing their presidency. There's a vacant seat in the Supreme Court. He explained that because you know, 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 of portals. I said, oh, my goodness, this is deep. I said, wow, I learned so much by reading because I didn't have a concept of original constructionalist. I didn't even know about that until reading that article.

Speaker 3: 55:32

Yeah, that you just bust our heads open, because you know what's so great about it. That comment being said, I look back at every presidential race. They may focus on the votes, but they always focus on the seats of the judge who gets the most, and I'm like yo to see how they would maneuver around the law whatever they can do, and just now we're seeing that law, find Trump's presidency.

Speaker 3: 55:57

That's it. It's just that his focus was the 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 maneuvering around the law, like that they label him the king because he figured it out Exactly.

Speaker 2: 56:16

Because they apply what? What they do, because they apply what they do, because they apply a particular constitutional interpretation, once again, originalist, constructionalist. So it's the. This hit me on. My brothers and sisters, you have constitutional interpretation methods. It matters which one is employed. Let me give you another case.

Speaker 2: 56:45

In the Foster versus Nielsen. This is Foster versus Nielsen and this was based off the interpretation of the 18, 18 treaty between Spain and the United States. That's when. That was when that in that treaty, spain ceded Florida to United States in 1818, 1818 treaty. So it was Spain. Spain granted land grant. Spain granted Spanish land grants to Spanish subjects in Florida. So the argument was that they did. Spain ceded the land to United States before this particular land grant was granted. The person made the claim that he would be protected under the treaty because Spain still had control of the land when it was granted the land grant.

Speaker 2: 57:54

So in Foster v Nielsen, the English version of the treaty was read Hit me out. And so which was an error? Why You'll learn. That was an error in Thompson versus United States and Thompson, and no Purchman and Purchman versus Thompson and Purchman versus Thompson. They made it clear that that was an error. And reading the English version of the treaty was error. Why? Because the Spanish version of the treaty was error. Why? Because the Spanish version of the treaty gives a different interpretation. So they did. And the Foster versus Nielsen, the international canning of the principles of interpretation was not applied. But and I think it was United States versus Purchment, united States versus Purchment, the international law, the international canon, principles, interpretation was applied. The Spanish version of the treaty was read. That was.

Speaker 2: 59:10

And my brothers and sisters, you know I know I'm a nerd, but I do that because I, so I can do it, I can educate, I, I do that so I can educate. I can give examples, I can answer questions, I can give references upon references. As I answer questions, I'm not coming out of thin air. I can give cases, I can give other references upon references, answering questions. So I'm showing them, give all the references upon reference and asking questions. So I'm explaining, I'm showing them the value of study. How will everyone empower us?

Speaker 1: 59:47

Real quick. I just want to say this hey, mike Paul Dyer, you know what I mean. I got you I got you, bro, so continue brother. Yes, Before I continue do y'all have any?

Speaker 2: 59:58

I?

Speaker 1: 59:58

got you bro, alright so continue, brother.

Speaker 2: 59:59

Yes, alright, before I continue, do y'all have any questions? Cause we're all tying this in to it, all ties into the topic, because the topic is about dehumanization, the use of color and race. But that is through what? Through social engineering, through constructing a new, a false paradigm, and social engineering, a false paradigm, you know, to and to the society. So we're talking language, so the language discussion is paramount, absolutely, we're not even, we're not even off the topic, cause I, so your questions, your questions, you know, cause your questions, you know Allie bought value, further value to the discussion.

Speaker 1: 1:00:59

Now let me ask you this To study the proper way to study to like really understand not 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? You know what I mean To be All right.

Speaker 2: 1:01:22

So it is sorry. So what and how one would study is they would have to study fields of study. They would have to study grammar. 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.

Speaker 2: 1:01:41

Grammar is the building block to reading comprehension, because if you're studying, you're reading, but can you analyze what you're reading? Can you break, can you break it up to its component parts? Do you know the principles of grammar, as grammar is the building block to reading comprehension. So, so, so, and I wouldn't give, like you say, give instructions to study. It would be grammar, it would be etymology, it would be grammar, it would be etymology, it would be semantics, it would be fields of study that would aid one into studying.

Speaker 2: 1:02:27

Not a class on how to study. Let me explain why. Not a class on how to study? Because there's no value in that. Let me explain. There's no value in that. Let me explain. There's no value in that.

Speaker 2: 1:02:42

Someone who doesn't know grammar, how would a class? Are someone who is poor in grammar, how would a class on how to study me? You're not teaching grammar. You're not teaching them grammar. How would a class on how to study help them? Grammar is very important. I study grammar and I teach grammar. I'm not saying grammar. I study grammar and I teach grammar basic and advanced grammar. That I do know. I know the value of grammar and how it aids in reading comprehension. So if they're poor grammar and you ain't teaching them grammar, how are you teaching them how to study? All right, let me give an example. Let me give an example, ron. There's something just basic. Ron threw the ball. Ron threw the ball. Who threw the ball? Ron, right, what did Ron throw? So, ron, is the subject Through Past tense, because that gives you time. Past tense, not present tense, not future tense. Alright, so now we're looking at what Tense, now Time tense. What did he throw? Ball? Was it the direct object? Now I ask this question when did Ron throw the ball?

Speaker 1: 1:04:31

he threw the ball in the past, but when?

Speaker 2: 1:04:35

in the past. So where did he throw the? So where did he throw the ball? Where did Ron throw the ball?

Speaker 1: 1:04:45

You got me a little stumped. I'm kind of pardon me. Pardon me more. I'm trying to set up the next interview.

Speaker 2: 1:04:52

No problem, I got you yes, so let me. So the answer. So the answer. The answer is that the information is not provided. When, why did he throw it? Where did he throw it? The information is not provided. All is provided is that what did Ron throw A ball? Not when, not where, not how, right. So that's in grammar. So we can give that information with grammar how he threw it, where he threw it, the time, and that's grammar, that's through the knowledge of grammar. So someone who has a poor knowledge of grammar, that's studying. I'm just giving a and I thank you, brother Ron.

Speaker 1: 1:05:42

So that means the words have a significant value? Yes, However, without the grammar you can't really hold the words.

Speaker 2: 1:05:56

Thank you, thank you. That's Professor Burton, the words. Thank you, thank you. That's Professor Burton, the one who taught me. You sound like him. He said that. He said exactly that, professor Burton. My etymology professor said exactly that. I remember I was at Professor Burton's house. I was at Professor Burton's house, this was 1990, my first semester of 1998. I was at his house October, november, 1998. And I said Professor Burton, I want to improve my reading comprehension. He says, yeah, you do it through grammar. I think no, we were. I think I was studying grammar at the time. This was my, this was the second semester with Professor Byrne, so it was 1999. And he said yeah, you're doing it by studying grammar. I said what he said. Yeah, he said you can improve your reading by studying grammar. I said what man? And guess what? He was right and he said exactly what you said, because he emphasized the importance of grammar and the value of it. Remember it's etymology teaching. He said how you said it. He said it just like that. He sure did.

Speaker 1: 1:07:31

So studying grammar is key Absolutely, and knowing where to put the words that that's all a part of grammar.

Speaker 2: 1:07:41

Absolutely, absolutely All right. So if you want to convey a thought, absolutely, uh, brother Ron, all right. Now you want to convey a thought on paper, what don't you have to use grammar now to put to convey a thought? You have to use to even speak it. To speak it, you're using grammar to interpret, using the principles of grammar. Run through the ball, run through the ball. I just want to do something that's simple, because you got to get something that's simple, but I can, like I said I asked the question where did Ron throw the ball? The answer is not provided. The answer is not provided, information is not provided, right, but I'm saying that you can construct that, ron, through grammar, right, you can add, I can add an adverbial clause of time. And verbial clause of time, I can 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 single adverb.

Speaker 2: 1:08:54

You can add clauses, a verbal clause of time. When you're proficient in the grammar, you can dance it, you can make it dance, you can break it dance. You can break sentences apart. My brothers and sisters, I did not know I could not break down long sentences. I remember when I started I met Tasha in October 1993. And in the older law dictionaries, in the Black's Law dictionaries, in the older one I started I met Tasha Rebae in October 1993. And in the older law dictionaries, 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. I had a difficulty in reading long sentences, not now. What helped me Grammar? By studying clauses that now clauses, adjective clauses, adverbial clauses, phrases, germans, participles, infinitives.

Speaker 1: 1:10:02

Now, this is where, this is where sentence structure go ahead, ron, right this is where I, personally, I would say, believe our peoples, moors that call themselves black, right. Yes, being that, I would say, black culture. What's ingrained in black culture is slang, and this is, I think, what keeps us behind, because it perpetuates bad grammar, poor speaking, et cetera, and in order for you to really hone in on the skill of speaking well, you have to speak it all the time.

Speaker 2: 1:10:49

You got to practice it, you got gotta do it. I mean absolutely. You gotta do it, I mean absolutely.

Speaker 1: 1:10:56

I think the slang further perpetuates the Negro state of mind and legal. You know what they call a civil little mortals.

Speaker 2: 1:11:12

Absolutely, and we don't control anything. So we can't afford to be that way. Right, that's not. That doesn't that continues to oppress us, right? Okay, you know they like said to subjugate keeps us in a subject that perpetuates the subjugation state right now.

Speaker 1: 1:11:38

I want to know how did this happen? Like we're slaying and being thugs and dark thinking and speaking and negativity. How did that become such a anchor in our community? Was that designed because it all kind of like came together at a certain period for lack of a better term like maybe around, maybe like the 80s?

Speaker 2: 1:12:08

there was a.

Speaker 2: 1:12:09

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 were privatized. It all ties in to answering your question. The prisons were privatized and so that so the corporations got a, have a contract with the states and the states are in the contract. There are, there are stipulations, there's conditions, stipulations the states are obligated to keep the prisons full. Stipulations the states are obligated to keep the prisons full. The states were breaching their contract by not keeping the prisons full.

Speaker 2: 1:12:58

So the master plan was that meeting 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. Keep in mind, they attack rap. There was a meeting in 1990. Some rappers were there. That was so to what To put the criminal element into rap. Some rappers were there that was 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 rap at all. You rap this or you don't rap at all. So the brothers are not lying when they say well, I had to do it because you have brothers that say that used to have interviews Rappers. Absolutely, they ain't lying. That was the plan. So that was to criminalize rap music, to put that hard criminal element, to implant that in our children with that criminology. That's how that. That's that, you see, because you said in the 80s and I'm here, you're right. So that was a strong, concerted effort. Nothing just happens, that was by planned land.

Speaker 1: 1:14:28

Now someone said, speaking on slang, can you explain connotative and denotative?

Speaker 2: 1:14:39

Yes, there are scholars. All right, let me do it this way first, and then I'll go into that. There are scholars. Denotation, denote, so it means mark, point, so to mark. So you mark or designate, mark or designate, mark or designate Glasses, eyeglasses.

Speaker 2: 1:15:22

So eyeglasses is the term. So you have the thought, the object, all right, and the words. You have the thought, the word and the object. So this is the word is eyeglasses. The object is what I'm holding in my hand. I say what does the word glasses denote? What does the word glasses denote? What does the word glasses denote? And someone says what does the word eyeglasses denote? And someone says eyeglasses. That's the wrong answer. You said the word eyeglasses. All you had to do was point to it, because the word eyeglasses does not denote the word eyeglasses. All you had to do was point to it, because the word eyeglasses does not denote the word eyeglasses. The word eyeglasses denote what I'm holding in my hand. Just point to it. Just point to it. It means you're pointing to it To designate, to mark. Okay.

Speaker 2: 1:16:26

So let me explain connotation. Connotation is figurative, like you are you. So we're looking at um, let's say rock, and, and the actual object rock. So you have the word rock and the object rock. So they, the word rock denotes the object rock, so the word rock denotes the object rock. Now we're talking connotation.

Speaker 2: 1:16:55

Ron is a rock. Well, we know that Ron is not a actual rock. So I'm using rock connotatively, associative meaning, strength. So the associative meaning. So rock is hard, you know. So I'm using an associative or connotative meaning and applying that to Ron's character, to Ron is a rock and that is a. That is what's known as a metaphor.

Speaker 2: 1:17:36

A simile would be the use of like 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 difference between a simile, a metaphor is Ron is a rock. Now, what's the difference between a simile and metaphor? When you use a metaphor, as in Ron is a rock, that is, his 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 to make my point of describing Ron's character from a strong point, I will use a metaphor, not a simile. See, I'm not just metaphor, not a simile. See, I'm not just explaining what I can explain why.

Speaker 1: 1:18:34

Okay, okay, all right. People in the chat, y'all following this, y'all following this. You got to pay attention. You can't be watching TV and watching. Oh, no, no, they don't want to watch no TV while I'm on. Ok so now? Great, great explanation, great demonstration. Now we, we are going to close out now. However, we'd love to have you come back on and keep explaining this.

Speaker 2: 1:19:11

I'm going to be every second and fourth Wednesday. I have other people that will come with me, and Brother Israel Bay and Brother King El Bay and Brother Viserious Ill. I'll do the next one, I'll do, I'll. Actually, I might do the next one. I might do the next one with Brother Israel. Brother Israel and I will do the next one together. That'll be the fourth Wednesday.

Speaker 1: 1:19:38

Right, so check, check, check, check. I hope y'all got what the brother displayed today. Now we understand who we have on the check-in every second and fourth and fourth Wednesday. Wednesday is all about etymology, grammar words, et cetera.

Speaker 2: 1:19:55

International law.

Speaker 1: 1:19:57

International law.

Speaker 2: 1:19:58

Jurisprudence, legal principles yes, I got some heavy hitters with me. I got some heavy hitters.

Speaker 1: 1:20:04

Indeed. Thank you, brother, for coming out this evening. We really appreciate you. See y'all. On Friday we have a live from the 5% Nation, wise Asia. She's coming up to tell her story. Saturday we got the Moorish brother Sha'el on Saturday. Sunday we got brother Eric Muhammad from the Nation of Islam. Thank you for coming out this evening, brother Abdullah, and we are out of here. Peace, peace you.