Wednesday, September 28, 2016

The G.A.O.T.U. The Grand Architects Of The Universe

The G.A.O.T.U.
The Grand Architects Of The Universe

*This appears in Chapter 11 "A.E.A.O.N.M.S vs. A.A.O.N.M.S" of my book Eyes Wide Shut: The Science of Secret Societies:

Since the late 1700's, 1784 to be exact, to this day, the legitimacy of Black Freemasonry and Shriners has been legally challenged by White Freemasons and Shriners on a State and Federal level here in America. In many cases these legal challenges were upheld in a court of law and these white Freemasons or Shriners were able to successfully get injunctions against blacks from using their constitution, names/titles, rituals, emblems, constitution and regalia publicaly or privately in what became commonly known among Freemasonry as black "clandestine" [fraudulent] masons, lodges and Shriner temples. For example, on June 3rd, 1929 the Texas Supreme Court decided that the Negro [Black] "Ancient Egyptian Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine of North and South America and its Jurisdictions" [A.E.A.O.N.M.S] were biting the White "Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine for North America." Even though this suit began in 1918 in Texas, it had grown to restrain and prevent blacks from imitating white temples throughout the entire United States. It was eventually decreed by the court that the A.E.A.O.N.M.S were restrained from using their name, any other name or distinctive words which can be considered a colorable imitation of the [white] Shiners.  It was also decreed that blacks couldn't use the words "temple" or "shrine", wear or display as an insignia or emblems of membership of any society or organization, corporate or otherwise, any of the emblems, insignia, paraphernalia, badges, jewels or head-covering, etc., which can be considered a colorable imitation of the [white] Shiners.   Since [white] American Freemasons colonial beginning and their [white] Shriner 1872 inception, there are literally hundreds of legal cases against blacks who have strived to 'freely' set up their own lodges and temples or be 'accepted' into white lodges and temples; the irony of being Free and Accepted, huh? There are also various legal cases of black Freemasons and Shriners taking other black Freemasons and Shriners for the same damn reasons: check out the case of Prince Hall Grand Lodge vs. the John A. Bell Grand Lodge.

Yes many blacks argue that Prince Hall, a black Freemason did it first when he got permission to set up African Lodge No. 459 in North America via a charter from Fredrick, Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Ancient Masons on September 29, 1784. This was prior to George Washington and his working class cronies getting a charter from England. Yeah I've even heard the argument that black Shriners technically did it first because white Shriners were only a voluntary 'unincorporated' association since the 1870's while blacks got legally incorporated in Illinois in 1893, then incorporated again after it was abandoned in 1901 as a fraternal and charitable association under the Act of Congress of May 5, 1870. I can see the legitimacy of these claims and the idea that whites don't possess the exclusive or superior right to use the constitution, names/titles, rituals, emblems, constitution and regalia of Freemasonry or Shriners. All of it is originally derived or falsified from first world people; the original fathers and mothers of civilization, and white Freemasons and Shriners cannot chronologically, genetically, geographically or archeologically stake claim to that. Yet it's also important to keep in mind that the legal courts these legitimacy cases are tried in, the color of law and their assessment that some of us seek validation from is the legal arm of a system and status quo that's dominantly controlled by whites. This control, in the form of nepotism and white privilege, has allowed America to historically and legally establish superior rights for some of its citizenry and an inferior status of Slavery, Indian Boarding Schools, Segregation, Japanese Internment Camps, Racial Profiling, Women's Suffrage and etc. for others. In other words, the same way you historically had people of color fighting, assimilating, imitating and trying to integrate to be acknowledged, validated and accepted by those sitting in a public judgment seat, you had people of color 'privately' fighting, assimilating and imitating and trying to integrate to be acknowledged, validated and accepted by those sitting in a private judgment seat. People seem to only talk about black people openly trying to integrate white movie theaters, hotels, restaurants, schools and etc. Naw, you also had a simultaneous secretive movement of black people trying to integrate white masonic lodges and various other exclusively white auxiliary organizations including the shrine. Here's the kicker: you oftentimes had various black leaders outwardly promoting segregation, black self reliance and presenting themselves as black nationalists who were already secret initiates or trying to be initiated into some masonic lodge or other auxiliary organization that's legally considered a colorable imitation of its white superior counterpart or beholden to a white superior governing body.

Learn more about this HERE!!

In this high time of #BlackLivesMatter activism and people of color positioning themselves to be socially conscious talking heads to bang on the system, all of this is very important to consider. Why? Because everybody is not who they say they are. This living contradiction amongst some people of color has been a consistent historical narrative here in America, or wherever you see colonialism around the globe. As a minority group in this capitalistic society, some of us measure success as individual accomplishment, how much money we can make and how high we can climb a social ladder and get close to those who print the capital and made the ladder. In the process, some of us, often secretly, join certain organizations, have certain associations, establish certain relationships and even change certain ideals in order to "so-called" be a part of the club. Don't get me wrong, ambition, having aspirations and setting goals is not negative in and of itself. There are many people I know who are doing very positive things personally and collectively. It's when people have no integrity or compromise their integrity to get money and ascend a social ladder when it becomes negative. At one point in time the black church, social clubs and Freemasonry were the only game in town. As much as was humanly possible, some of us used these platforms to do for self while striving to maintain our cultural integrity. Today, with the illusion of integration, many of these houses of worship, clubs and organizations are only a shell of their former self and holding people of color back more than healing and helping them. With the creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), changes in the law of how nonprofit organizations can legally operate and the modification of bylaws and unspoken membership rules/regulations of certain organizations, people of color who are not striving to do for self are even more beholden to the legal arm of a system and status quo that's still dominantly controlled by whites. What do I propose? Definitely not the attitude some of us have that, "If we can't beat them, lets join them -and use what hookups they got to succeed or bring knowledge to the lodge or temple and make it better." I know brothers who joined the lodge or temple with those idealistic intentions only to realize after the fact that 1.) So-called hookups are limited to when, how and if they choose to hook.., you.. up and 2.) You're not going to walk in and change an institution and ideology that's beholden to a white Masonic and Shriner tradition that's formally been in tact for a combination of over 400 years.  If our goal is genuinely cultural freedom then we must make choices to remove the vices and entanglements to anything that's restricts our ability to live our culture free. This means we must not join any organizations, have associations, forge relationships and even change certain ideals that will get us more entangled. That's like saying we're striving to save money to buy a house and then turning around buying a new car with a lease that's crippling our pockets. That's backwards. Some entanglements are more difficult to remove than others. Some people are striving to be more entrepreneurial and work for themselves, those are the employment entanglements they're dealing with. Others are investing in solar paneling or live off of the grid. Still others may be fighting addiction while others are figuring out ways to create a homeschooling consortium for their community. Whatever those entanglements may be, the struggle to free ourselves from them is worth it, don't you think?

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

MOST Black Men...

MOST Black Men...

     One of the surest ways to get blindsided by life is to start off with a wrong or false premise. A premise is the basis [foundation] of an argument or theory. For example, if I start off saying, "MOST women...", that is the wrong premise to argue from. It suggests that I know most women when I absolutely don't. Therefore, everything that concludes that wrong statement has more of a chance to be wrong too. Why? The foundation isn't solid. If you've ever witnessed a person start off with the wrong premise you may have also seen that conversation take a sharp detour to address the wrong premise before going any further. For example, before I could even go into talking about "MOST women" a critical thinker would first address the fact that I don't know most women to speak on them. Starting off wrong sets the tone for whatever else I have to say about women that has a high probability of being wrong too. At best, all I could say is "most women I know" -which sets the right premise and frames the conversation in the proper context. 

     What inspired this article are the countless false premises and arguments I see offline and on social media. While some false premises are deliberately made as clickbait, there are those who simply don't know how to soundly communicate their ideas. They may be well intended, and even have a valid point to make about their own personal experiences or observations, yet it all goes out of the window when they start off wrong. I once saw a Facebook post get so out of hand that it resulted in violence offline, all because of a wrong premise about how someone died.

     I recently had an online exchange with a black woman who shared a post of a white man being interviewed by a black woman on a South African News Station. Out of frustration of her questions, the white man walked off of the show and threatened her to the point he had to be escorted out of the building. The woman who posted this video captioned it, "This is how most black men treat black women now a days. It's pitiful" Upon seeing this I commented that at best all she could accurately say is, "most black men I know." Instead of considering the fundamental flaw in her statement her only response was "My mother always told me only a hit dog makes noise." The irony in this is she was literally talking to a black man who is not "MOST black men" she described. In fact, all of my colleagues are not like that. When faced with this scenario some people take pride in trying to convince someone like this otherwise. If it's a child who lacks the experience then I share with them some examples they can consider outside of their sphere of awareness. If it's an adult with no physical/mental impairments that limits their experience or sphere of awareness then I don't waste time trying to explain anything. This is an able-bodied adult who is ignorant by choice. Meaning, they choose to ignore new information and experience anything outside of their limited sphere of awareness. With this person it is only a matter of time before life shows them something otherwise. In this woman's case, who was single, she'll miss brothers like myself who don't fit into her conceptual prison house.

     As I said, many arguments start from the place of a wrong premise. Consider Donald Trump's false premise about Mexican Immigrants that, "THEY [The Mexican Government] send the bad ones over because they don't want to pay for them" or Hillary Clinton's 1996 Speech at Keene State College Speech describing inner-city [black and brown] youth as "superpredators" -a word first mentioned by Princeton Political Science Professor John DiIulio to describe these youth as subhuman, wild, amoral creatures ready to violate and murder Americans without a conscience. Both of these false premises, and many others, have been used to criminalize people of color in this country and reinforce an image of inferiority/distrust that permeates every institution, that colors every resource and fuels this economy.

     How do we begin to change that? To start, knowledge must be our foundation, not belief, hearsay or feelings. Having the facts enables us to speak from a position of surety and confidence because our proposition is sound. When we start off right, with the right information, the conclusions drawn from what we say and do will be less likely to be wrong. Belief, hearsay and feelings don't afford us the same sense of security and stability because they aren't concrete. People believe whatever they want regardless of the facts, hearsay is nothing but a rumor and feelings change like the wind. While there's a place for all of these perspectives, they're not the most sound sources to build upon because they're too transitory [impermanent]. The more we know, we have the ability to make wiser decisions. It's difficult to make wise decisions when we don't know anything first. So as we become more informed about people, places and things ,we'll begin to expand our sphere of awareness and experience life beyond the limits of belief, hearsay and feelings. We'll begin to "know" the "ledge" [knowledge] of the false premises we once stood upon and willfully speak and act wiser than we did before.

     In the series Kung Fu, Master Kan in speaking to his student Caine about perceiving the way of nature said, "Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced." With growth and development comes power, and this influence makes us a resource and responsible to those who are unaware. There are times I didn't follow the above advice in regards to mental combat and killed rather than maim, maimed instead of checking a person and checked a person instead of avoiding them. As I've gotten older I realize that many arguments can be avoided with a few well chosen words or avoiding the conversation altogether in order to preserve the relationship. People are capable of drawing the right conclusions, such as "my love wasn't wrong, I just shared it with a person unwilling to reciprocate it" if they can get their premise right, "there is a chance for love" as opposed to  a false premise like "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" or "all men cheat." It takes courage and receptivity to think outside of the box before stepping outside of the box, but it's a way of thinking and a step that's worth it. To say that MOST or ALL people, places and things are a certain way, especially when we don't know MOST or ALL people, places and things, is equivalent to building a house with straw or sticks. And it's only a matter of time before the big bad wolf comes and huffs, puffs and blows that house down.