Within The Five Percent
One of the common phrases you may hear within the media are "Talking Points." A talking point is a statement designed to support one side taken on an issue during a debate or discourse. It's also a position someone takes or a series of points/remarks used to guide their conversation and support their argument or discussion. Take for example Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo on Fox News. He starts off his memo with a question and then goes into some commentary highlighting different talking points to support his argument. Here's a good example of one of his memos about The Dramatic Muslim Invasion.
What some of us overlook about shows like Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is that the network itself defines and supports his points/remarks. As a television host on this network, O'Reilly and his points/remarks are used to advocate the network's perspective and vision of the world, the people in it and their relationship to the planet. And when I say "the network's perspective", I'm referring to FNC [Fox News Channel] founders Rupert Murdoch, Republican Party media consultant and NBC executive Roger Ailes and others who own a piece of the company and its sister channels. When we're watching Fox News or any other channel for that matter, their points/remarks are designed to guide their audiences arguments or discussions on that subject matter. Even if we're watching the National Geographic channel; if it's a show about endangered baleen whales, the points/remarks made in that show are designed to guide our arguments or discussions on that subject matter or to possibly solicit financial support from us. When we don't own or control our own media outlets, we don't control our narrative or talking points. And when we don't control our talking points we're subject to others talking about and for us.
When we're having a discussion, engaged in a debate or even an argument, we're exchanging talking points. We're making a series of points/remarks to guide that conversation and support our argument. All of us do it; some do it better than others. However, the goal is not to simply make points/remarks. The goal is to do something with the points/remarks we've exchanged. Generally speaking, Christian talking points are derived from the bible. Muslims get their talking points from the Koran while others include talking points from Muhammad. I know some teenagers who get their talking points from trap music and elementary school youth who get their talking points from the Disney channel, internet and their peers. One time I was asked about the Five Percenter perspective of God by a Christian brother and I simply said, "WWGD: What Would God Do?" I went on to explain that as the biblical scriptures say we are fashioned in the image and likeness of God, our perspective is to strive to do things in a Godly way. He didn't argue with that and I successfully used a talking point not to argue or debate but to guide that discussion in a positive direction, even if that person's intention was to argue or debate.
What some of us overlook about shows like Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is that the network itself defines and supports his points/remarks. As a television host on this network, O'Reilly and his points/remarks are used to advocate the network's perspective and vision of the world, the people in it and their relationship to the planet. And when I say "the network's perspective", I'm referring to FNC [Fox News Channel] founders Rupert Murdoch, Republican Party media consultant and NBC executive Roger Ailes and others who own a piece of the company and its sister channels. When we're watching Fox News or any other channel for that matter, their points/remarks are designed to guide their audiences arguments or discussions on that subject matter. Even if we're watching the National Geographic channel; if it's a show about endangered baleen whales, the points/remarks made in that show are designed to guide our arguments or discussions on that subject matter or to possibly solicit financial support from us. When we don't own or control our own media outlets, we don't control our narrative or talking points. And when we don't control our talking points we're subject to others talking about and for us.
When we're having a discussion, engaged in a debate or even an argument, we're exchanging talking points. We're making a series of points/remarks to guide that conversation and support our argument. All of us do it; some do it better than others. However, the goal is not to simply make points/remarks. The goal is to do something with the points/remarks we've exchanged. Generally speaking, Christian talking points are derived from the bible. Muslims get their talking points from the Koran while others include talking points from Muhammad. I know some teenagers who get their talking points from trap music and elementary school youth who get their talking points from the Disney channel, internet and their peers. One time I was asked about the Five Percenter perspective of God by a Christian brother and I simply said, "WWGD: What Would God Do?" I went on to explain that as the biblical scriptures say we are fashioned in the image and likeness of God, our perspective is to strive to do things in a Godly way. He didn't argue with that and I successfully used a talking point not to argue or debate but to guide that discussion in a positive direction, even if that person's intention was to argue or debate.
Within the culture of the Five Percent, 6/8th's or 75% of our talking points are derived from 120 lessons. Our lessons not only define our position on the map of human geography, they contain information that enables us to make a series of points/remarks on an issue, or an aspect of an issue, related to us, our chronology, our relationship to others, the planet and the universe. These points/remarks define our perspective and vision of the world, our discourse at home, in public [abroad] and within the media. If I'm having a discussion with someone about diet, because of my cultural orientation as a Five Percenter, I may make points/remarks during that conversation that supports a position that they don't embrace, or never heard of before. Whatever those points/remarks are, it's up to me to provide the actual facts and concrete evidence to help them draw their own conclusion. This is the reason I stated 120 lessons is where we get the majority of our talking points from, not Supreme Mathematics. Supreme Mathematics, which is only 12.5% of our cultural curriculum, are principles that correspond to 0-9 within our numerical system; 1 = Knowledge, 2 = Wisdom, 3 = Understanding and etc. Numerals are symbols that represent numbers, they are not numbers themselves. Numerals and Numbers, like the principles of Supreme Mathematics, are abstract concepts/ideas until applied to concrete things. Meaning, Numerals and Numbers, like the principles of Supreme Mathematics, are an idea prior to having a physical or concrete existence. For example, the numeral "3" says nothing concrete in and of itself; it's just a symbol. As the number three, it still says nothing concrete until used to represent "three" apples, for example. In Supreme Mathematics the numeral "3", and number three, corresponds to the principle of "Understanding"; which also says nothing concrete until understanding is explained within the context of every day life. Even if I were to use the common phrase, "The Understanding is the best part; our children," I still have to explain WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY because that phrase is an abstract concept. Without our explanation, many people don't understand that, will remain confused and oftentimes won't tell you how confused they are; they'll just nod their heads in agreement and won't ask questions for clarity. Mathematics is a mental system that uses numerals as numbers to teach us how to think; how to calculate, quantify and compute reality. Supreme Mathematics is also a mental system that identifies principles that correspond to numerals and numbers that teach us how to calculate, quantify and compute reality. 120 lessons lay out the terrestrial/celestial landscape of the reality we're calculating, quantifying and computing with the principles of Supreme Mathematics and qualities of our Supreme Alphabet.
Consider this: If a person only has the principles of Supreme Mathematics, which are abstract concepts, what is the concrete basis of their talking points? Since their points/remarks are not derived from 120 lessons, where did they get their actual facts from to define their position, support their argument and guide their discussion? Take for example a discussion about the devil, civilization or righteousness which are not any of the principles of Supreme Mathematics. Without 120 lessons, which deal extensively with these subject matters, what is the basis of their talking points about the devil, civilization or righteousness? By simply considering these questions, you can see what's behind some of the contradictory behavior/positions, weak arguments and inability to guide a discussion about our culture by people who claim to be Five Percenters who are not striving to learn 120 lessons and/or who only claim Supreme Mathematics as their entire culture. The same scenario applies to Christians who claim Christianity without knowing the bible, a Tour Guide who doesn't know the area or a Game Stop customer service specialist who is not a gamer. In all of these instances it's only a matter of time before these people sound like they're talking out of their arse, or they look like one, in a discussion.
As Five Percenters, it's impossible to make a consistent series of solid points/remarks to guide our conversation and support our position/argument about this culture if we don't know 120 lessons. We're missing too many points to talk about. Our lessons provide many actual facts about our identity, chronology, the physical dimensions of our planet, our relationships with our human family and the perimeters of our solar system. Again, it's 6/8th's or 75% of our talking points.
Peace,
Saladin
Consider this: If a person only has the principles of Supreme Mathematics, which are abstract concepts, what is the concrete basis of their talking points? Since their points/remarks are not derived from 120 lessons, where did they get their actual facts from to define their position, support their argument and guide their discussion? Take for example a discussion about the devil, civilization or righteousness which are not any of the principles of Supreme Mathematics. Without 120 lessons, which deal extensively with these subject matters, what is the basis of their talking points about the devil, civilization or righteousness? By simply considering these questions, you can see what's behind some of the contradictory behavior/positions, weak arguments and inability to guide a discussion about our culture by people who claim to be Five Percenters who are not striving to learn 120 lessons and/or who only claim Supreme Mathematics as their entire culture. The same scenario applies to Christians who claim Christianity without knowing the bible, a Tour Guide who doesn't know the area or a Game Stop customer service specialist who is not a gamer. In all of these instances it's only a matter of time before these people sound like they're talking out of their arse, or they look like one, in a discussion.
As Five Percenters, it's impossible to make a consistent series of solid points/remarks to guide our conversation and support our position/argument about this culture if we don't know 120 lessons. We're missing too many points to talk about. Our lessons provide many actual facts about our identity, chronology, the physical dimensions of our planet, our relationships with our human family and the perimeters of our solar system. Again, it's 6/8th's or 75% of our talking points.
Peace,
Saladin
No comments:
Post a Comment