Thursday, August 30, 2018

Anecdotal Fallacy: Coonery Edition

Q: Are black police officers hated in black neighborhoods?

Muhammad Rasheed - It depends on the neighborhood and what role the Black cops are actually taking.
  1. If the Black cops are fully assimilated into the anti-Black culture of the Fraternal Order of Police, then they will just be white supremacists in blackface. You can reasonably expect these ‘coon’ figures to have a recod of atrocities against Black people that match that of their white racist colleagues, and the Black people in the neighborhood will be justified in hating them.
  2. If the Black cops were recruited/appointed by strong pro-Black leadership as part of a dedicated Black Empowerment plan, then they can be reasonably expected to take the “serve & protect” aspect of their duties seriously on the local community level, and the hate may be unfounded.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Archiving the Sacred

Mike Morgan - Why do people of faith find it difficult to understand that others genuinely do not believe in God?

Muhammad Rasheed - I’m a ‘person of faith,’ and I don’t find it difficult to understand that there are people in the world who genuinely don’t want to build up the discipline and strength of character needed to be a believer in the One God. I understand that these people prefer to live as if there is no God.

It would seem as if these atheists find it difficult to understand that a person who has faith in the afterlife—and consequently, knowledge of the terrible fate that awaits the disbeliever—would like to help save them from hell by sharing the message of scripture with them. If the atheist happens to be someone we know, then we’d want to make sure they have more chances to save themselves than a single “no.” I wonder why those who do not have faith are so dead set against believing when they so often know so little about it.

Adam Sivachev - Are you sure it takes much more “discipline and strength of character” to be a believer in the One God rather than not? Very questionable.

It’s easier to live being a believer and believing you know what awaits you, believing you know the capital T truth in form of a word of God, that right or wrong, good and bad, etc, are set in stone for you via sacred books…

And it’s much harder to live on, while understanding that everything most people believe in, is their collective or individual illusions. That good, evil, morality, right or wrong - have no absolute standard in the universe by which to prove their existence as immutable laws - hence all your “discipline and strength of character” is just the illusion of meaning and significance, in a universe that has none.

Then it’s much harder to live with all this and still be a decent person, not because of fear of “eternal punishment”, but because you yourself decided to incorporate this meaning into your life, by your own philosophy. And that’s completely different thing.

Muhammad Rasheed - It definitely takes high-level discipline and strength of character to be a dedicated believer in the One God, and to apply oneself to adhering to the Straight Way of Righteousness per the requirement of sacred scripture. It’s far more seductively easy to just abandon the effort and swagger through life with the faux-assurance that what we process through our lowly five senses is all there is to process.

I’m amused at the idea that you are ‘living on’ being a ‘decent person by your own philosophy,’ when the very standards of morality, ethics and being good people comes directly from the sacred scripture traditions that have been among humankind from the species’ beginnings. You don’t live in a vacuum, and you certainly don’t conjure pet philosophies from thin air without the influence of the ages old cultures that surround you.

Adam Sivachev - The impression that a path was given to you by a higher force, that what’s good and what’s wrong was spoon-fed to you with the scriptures does ease following any path thoroughly. A belief that there’s something else, than just you and the void, makes it easier.

Facing this meaninglessness may be much more horrifying than anything that scriptures or priests say to inflict fear of eternal punishment on their followers.
People who are spoon-fed their version of truth, they are happy. They believe they found the meaning. It’s now easier for them. But not for you, when you understand that the meaning is not something objectively carved in reality, it’s what you decide for yourself. Which path is harder? I’ve used to experience both, and I do know that the second one is way harder.

Regarding your remark, that “you certainly don’t conjure pet philosophies from thin air without the influence of the ages old cultures” - that’s true to an extent, but these cultures’ moral codes are not everything. Their codes can be overcome, their philosophies deconstructed, they cannot bind your judgments not to go beyond them.

As for “‘living on’ being a decent person by your own philosophy” - some moral norms have practical roots. It’s perfectly manageable to come to similar conclusions in many cases that other philosophies preach - moral norms can cross, nothing strange about it. You can follow your own code and be a decent person in the eyes of others, and your “decent” and their “decent” will coincide - it can occur.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Straight Way of Righteous illuminated by sacred scripture is deceptively simple, but it certainly isn’t easy. Composed of denying oneself base pleasures that in the wrong context create sin, avoiding the temptations of evil that continuously beckon us to moral destruction, few among even those who claim to believe stand true on the Path. Perhaps it is for those who lived in communities known for covering over the revealed message towards true salvation with institutionalized bureaucracy in the guise of their religion—and the inherent camaraderie that comes from supporting one another in the same—would one receive the false impression that this was so.

I doubt facing a meaningless, Godless existence would actually be “horrifying” in the way presented. It would be far more horrifying for those lusting after sin to live with the certainty that they will be held accountable for all the decisions made throughout their earthly lifetimes. The false belief that there will be no Judgment Day waiting them would be freeing, and a perfect example of the seductive ease that all those too lazy to develop the discipline of belief find alluring.

Adam Sivachev - Straight Way of Righteousness isn’t easy, but there’s an all-forgiving God, so you can receive absolution for your every misdeed, no pressure here. The fact that you believe to have a capital and the only Truth given to you, abolishes lots of moral reservations, and first of all, the responsibility for finding your own moral ground.

Who’s more admirable - a person, who acts kindly and does good deeds (from Christian point of view) *without* any “Judgement Day” fear, or that religious person who does good deeds in fear of eternal punishment, should they do otherwise?

I’d give it to the first one. Because taking responsibility for finding your own path is harder than following a given code. It’s even harder to follow responsibility of the code you’ve made yourself, that shows the ultimate strength of character.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don’t know what “an all-forgiving God” means when the atheist, willfully uninformed about the actual content of scripture, says it. The One God forgives those whom He pleases, and per the revealed message sent for that purpose, He explains that He forgives those who step outside of their own base, animalistic vanities to commit to developing the high-level discipline and strength of character needed to be a believer.

I have no “responsibility for finding [my] own moral ground” since this is a fiction invented by disbelievers, based on a rejection of the fact that literally everything humanity thinks about morality comes from the ages old religious traditions that civilized us. Reinventing a wheel when there is no reason to do so is both unattractive and foolish.

The righteous believer, who does good in the world according to the criteria of the all-knowing Supreme Creator, and does so only to please the same, is by default more admirable than one who conjures “good” from some random ideology literally based on absolutely nothing. You think the latter is the most admirable, because you feel absolutely nothing is an admirable ideology, as compared to sacred scripture that human civilization was built around.

The ultimate strength of character is recognizing that humans are not gods, and require guidance lest they cause mischief in the earth. The rejection of that guidance is failure.

Adam Sivachev - Oh my, and you’re informed about the “actual content of scripture”? In Christianity alone, there are over 30K denominations - meaning that people actually do conceive scriptures with contradictions.

For each denomination in existence, there was an unsolvable conflict between people in Denomination A that resulted in Denomination B. This means that someone perceived that a doctrine, belief or practice in Denomination A was so far off track that splitting off to form another denomination was not only reasonable, but imperative.

With all this, it’s no use claiming that you know the “actual content of scriptures” better - no one does and at the same time, everyone believes it is they, who know exactly how a scripture should be interpreted.

As for the the “fact that literally everything humanity thinks about morality comes from the ages old religious traditions” - do you now speak about humanity as a whole and can be sure that’s true for each and every human being in existence? I’ve already explained how morals came to be and why some moral norms concur.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Reinventing a wheel when there is no reason to do so is both unattractive and foolish."

So, the morals humanity developed did not evolve over time, right? Because when certain norms and values evolve it’s due to inventing and re-inventing the wheel constantly, adding some new features with each “re-invention”.

Otherwise, you’d have humanity forever stuck in the same cultural norms and traditions, which absolutely would not change, like a tribe lost forever in a Stone Age. But if you look out the window, it’s not how it is - wow, we’ve evolved due to inventions and re-inventions. So, that argument about “re-inventing the wheel” is invalid.

M. Rasheed wrote: "The righteous believer, who does good in the world according to the criteria of the all-knowing Supreme Creator, and does so only to please the same, is by default more admirable than one who conjures 'good' from some random ideology literally based on absolutely nothing"

Problem is, all your further justification comes from the assumption that there’s an ultimate arbiter, the all-knowing Supreme Creator, that defines moral norms and good or bad objectively, as some immutable constant.

Alas, that concept is based on the same, if not on lower, ground, as the “random ideology” that you wrote about.

Moreover, one’s own ideology is based on one’s own experience, on the path they carved for themselves - which in is already more when compared to an ideology based on some beliefs in higher forces, that was irrationally passed to a believer by his culture and the beliefs of his parents.

Muhammad Rasheed - “Oh, my” indeed.

lol I am informed about the actual content of scripture since I’ve actually studied the material, as opposed to standing on the outside with shallow knowledge of the same, and casually dismissing the entire body of literature as fiction. The actual content of scripture is composed of the revealed message of the One God to the anointed prophet-messengers, that the latter preached to their peoples during their lifetimes. This is often mixed up with and/or mistakenly included with:

1.) the opinions of the followers of the prophet-messengers about what was preached to them

2.) the documented formal opinions of scholars of the religions’ body of literature.

 This is factual information that any actual scholar of the scriptural record is well aware, so your declaration that everyone is as uninformed as you are—in your role as a willfully uninformed atheist—is quite inaccurate. The “30K denominations” of Christianity you’ve mentioned have very little to do with what God actually told the Christ Jesus (peace be upon him) to preach to the children of Israel. The new denominations and sects and what have you of the world’s religions formed as political power grabs, not because there were problems in the original message of God.

I’ve read your atheist explanation of how morals came to be and dismissed it as uninformed foolishness. Should I not have? Atheists base their opinions on this topic on literally nothing, and thus have zero value to add to any of it. Please refrain from providing any more empty “explanations” on topics that you proudly and arrogantly know nothing about as some form of badge of honor. Thank you.

The moral guidance the all-knowing One God revealed has not changed, hence the enduring scripture of the ages still being relevant today and it will continue to be relevant for as long as we are human. By contrast, the laws humans fashion in their courts change all the time, but that’s the nature of humans that you seem to be mistaking for our morals. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel on morals; just do as God commands. How you as a human decided to interpret God’s commands formally in your laws may need to be amended based on your limited intellect and understanding (and greed and power lusts).

I do not assume that God is indeed THE immutable constant. The One God is this as Truth. Accept this Truth and save yourself from hell. The only problem here is that you reject what is actually true in favor of inventing faux-truths on the fly based on what you willy-nilly would like to be from your proud knowledge base of literally nothing at all. None of that holds any kind of value, and your posts function as little more than the empty flapping of a hand mimicking an opening & closing mouth.

The truth of God revealed to the very first human beings is the source of our language, our arts, our religions, and our very civilizations. The truth of God provided by our Creator’s Mercy is what humanized us, setting us apart from the base animal of our foundational structure, and this is a far, far cry from the “random ideology” false equivalency fallacy you are attempting to conjure from your committed position of ignorance about this topic you are so passionately against.

I’m curious what you yourself think about people who negatively pontificate at length about topics they literally have done zero research into, but magically believe their uninformed pet philosophies hold equal weight to those who have deep dived. Are you generous and trade with them as equals? Tell me.

Adam Sivachev - Ok, so here you write another longread, that is based on the same fallacy, as the previous ones - you assume that the “moral guidance” that you’re writing about exists objectively and are somehow based on something more than human conceptions or behavioral evolution.

Do you have a way to prove its existence as immutable physical laws that have absolute standard in the Universe?

If you don’t - then in such case, do not call that “Atheists base their opinions on this topic on literally nothing” - I’m afraid I haven’t seen any proof that your value is somehow more objective than mine - so, you’ve no higher ground to claim that your explanations value more.

Also constantly referring to the fact that “you’ve studied scriptures” doesn’t qualify as a proof of your exact flavor of morals to be an immutable objective truth. You may read Vedas or LaVey Bible as well and make claims to hold the knowledge of objective moral truth - it’ll have the same level of objectiveness to an outside observer.

I also like the notion of how 30K denominations of Christianity are wrong in their understanding of the scriptures and the moral truth, while you’re right and have a clear understanding of it, that’s truly fabulous.

By the way, I haven’t seen your explanations here, I only see that you constantly refer to some improvable belief that morals were obtained from a higher being called God. Sorry, I’ll have to ask you to try better with explanations. Does that help you answer your last question?

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) My “read” is only long in this case because of your own long reads. lol Keep your rambling thoughts to a minimal, and I promise my responses will shorten in return.

2.) Once again I am not assuming anything. The moral guidance we possess was provided by the all-powerful Supreme Creator of reality. I know this because this same Being told humanity this in the revealed message provided for this reason. Fortunately, previous generations were kind enough to scribe this information into printed books, so that we may objectively read it for ourselves as we like.

3.) Are you asking me am I capable of proving the Word of God is what it claims to be while using the limited tools & techniques required for testing & proving a limited range of material based scientific hypotheses? If so, then the answer is an amused “No.”

4.) You are confused. Between the two of us, I’m the only one who actually bases his position on something that’s real, i.e., the physical, printed sacred scripture used by humans throughout the ages to guide their behaviors, create art, and build whole civilizations around. The atheist on the other hand, proudly proclaims that atheism is the belief in nothing at all, even going so far as to insist the tenets and traits of atheists cannot even constitute a religion of its own since it is based on NOT believing in something. So whether you actually accept the origins of sacred scripture claimed by the believers as true or not, what is factual is that we do base our beliefs on something… something we actually hold in our hands and literally guides the conduct of those who actually follow what they have read. You, by stark contrast, literally hold NOTHING, and base all your opinions on whatever you conjure on the fly. Something > nothing.

5.) The so-called “objectiveness” of an atheist outside observer who is too deliberately ignorant to tell the difference between nothing versus the nuances of the various forms sacred scripture takes is worth just as much as the nothing he bases his own position upon.

6.) The point is that 30K denominations were not differentiated by their understanding of scripture, but by the institutionalized bureaucracy they used to jockey for political position. Since you don’t know enough about scripture either way to test my knowledge compared to what those jokers knew or didn't know, your comment is comical at best.

7.) Your comment wasn’t helpful since you just sidestepped what I actually asked to double-down on your commitment to atheism. Naturally this holds zero value to me. My explanations weren’t designed to convince you of anything, but only to explain the position I take. If you don’t accept them then that is where that stops. If instead you needed help understanding something I said in the explanation, then I can reword it to better help you. If you are asking me to discard my explanations and invent something that better suits the mindset of the unrepentant hellbound, then that will be another “No.”

Danijar Dreger - And from where do you know so much about it? From a book.

Muhammad Rasheed - Information is found in books? What an insane concept! O_O

Danijar Dreger - Yes, but do you know the genre “Fantasy”?

Muhammad Rasheed - Of course! I actually have a published graphic novel series under that genre category. :)

Steve Ives - I’m a non-believer and I find it difficult to understand that there are people in the world who genuinely lack the critical thinking skills and strength of character needed to reject institutionalised religion and to realise that the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god is a logical impossibility.

Muhammad Rasheed - In my experience with discussing the subject with disbelievers, I’ve found them to be excessively narrow-minded and actually adverse to using any logic or critical thinking skills they may possess. They usually just casually dismiss the concepts as fictions, and treat people that do explore the concepts as real as if they are primitive and stupid.

Steve Ives - Believing in something without proof is pretty illogical. Do you beleive in Thor, Neptune, fairies, mermaids or Bigfoot and if not, why not?

Muhammad Rasheed - Believing in a faith-based system without specialized, scientific proof is quite logical if that's what the system requires in order to function. It's illogical to insist a system jump through hoops that it wasn't designed to jump for. That would be the very definition of close-minded.

I don't believe in the false deities you've named because the One God ("One" being the clue here) revealed the enduring scripture of the ages in which He explained that He is the Supreme Creator, shares the Godhead role with no one, and that the pagan deities listed were but fictions created by weak minds. Since not one of them revealed their own scriptural "diss track" in response, that means the One God won that faux-beef.

Steve Ives - So... you believe in god because the Bible says he’s real? And why do you believe the Bible?

You do realise that the reason the Bible dismisses other gods and not vice-versa is chaise the Bible is the newest of these religious texts and therefore lacks the authority of the older texts.

Muhammad Rasheed - I believe in God because--in His mercy--God revealed His message to humankind, advised us to believe, and I decided to take God at His Divine Word, joining the ranks of the believer in word & deed. The collected books we know as “the bible” are part of the body of sacred scripture that make up that message, and within it, the honest truth seeker can connect many dots that form the greater canon.

Why do disbelievers—willfully ignorant and dismissive of the material’s content they are so critical of—say such things as “you do realize that…?” when they literally have no basis that supports that display of arrogance? The Omniscient One God, Supreme Creator of reality, proclaims that He is the only deity, and definitively said that all other idols of worship were fictions. God said that He revealed Himself to the very first human being, and subsequent generations fashioned other items to worship alongside and even instead of their Guardian Lord who created them because they were weak and stupid. Since there is no living human who can definitively prove this fact one way or another using the materialist rules of modern scientific rigor, you do realize that your claim is just faith-based wishful thinking from a disbeliever that shouldn’t mean anything to anyone else, right?

Steve Ives - Sorry but there are plenty of historical records that validate those god’s as well as the other 4,000+ that mankind has worshipped. Are you saying you don’t believe in *any* of them?

Muhammad Rasheed - I’m sorry, it looks like I confused you with my comment. Allow me to try again.

The enduring scripture of the ages… the revealed message of the One God to humankind… is our Creator talking directly to us, telling us who He is, what His requirements are for the sentient among the creation, explaining that all other deities from your 4,000+ and whatever else are just fictions invented by weak-minded men, and instructing us on how to be prosperous both in this world and in life hereafter. Show me the rival revealed scripture from any of these fictional deities you champion that directly addressed the One God’s claims and contradicted the message.


Steve Ives - I will show you the scripture from many other deities if you can show me the scripture from yours.

So you’re happy to dismiss 4,000 deities as fictitious? I’m happy to dismiss 4,001.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol You already know the scripture I hold. It's very famous. You even referenced part of it in your comment earlier. So what's your delay in linking me to the fictional rival scriptures that contradict the One God's claims?

Steve Ives - It’s ok... I’m just messing with you. There are over 4,000 mythical beings in which I don’t believe and you don’t believe in just one less than me, and you think one of them is real, and talks to you, because of a book full evil doings from this god, commands to kill and rape and sell your daughter, and stupid things you can do (mixed cloth, divorce etc etc) for which this being th8nks you should be stoned to death. And you think this being loves us and should be worshipped!

It’s just too ridiculous for words.

Steve Ives - …especially considering the HUGE amount of errors and contradictions in the bible. It is just a mish-mash of old stories, mis-told by old men trying to control people.

Muhammad Rasheed - You’re now “just messing with me,” are you? You are formally admitting that none of the 4,000+ fictional deities (that you oddly dropped as some kind of “Ah HA!!” earlier) have ever formally stepped up and revealed a message to humankind that countered the claims of the One God. You think that is a small thing from your woefully uninformed understanding of sacred scripture, the very one you casually dismiss as fiction based on that same uninformed understanding. You somehow believe—as evidenced from the tone of these posts of yours—that is somehow an intelligent/logical position to take.

Attend! The message of the One God was revealed to the prophet-messengers who were tasked to preach it clear & true to their peoples during their earthly lifetimes. What the different ethnic groups/communities did with the message once received varied greatly. Some, like the children of Israel, carried it as an oral song passed from generation to generation for centuries before it was finally written, but now changed with the taint of human dross. Many people never even bothered to try to save their message at all, and we know that they had a message revealed to them only from brief mentions in the scripture of others (Example: the Nineveh community of Jonah, peace be upon the prophet). One notable community both wrote down the message in its entirety once received and carried it orally, strictly guarding it from the human taint corruptions of previous scripture God Himself mentioned disapprovingly within the message.

So because I know this, I find your babbling “mish-mash of old stories, mis-told by old men trying to control people” tantrum to be the very “too ridiculous for words” you directed at me, since your understanding is so pathetically surface-level it barely makes a scratch in the first layer of dust.

Please improve if you hold plans to continue commenting on religious-themed Quora answers. At the moment you lack the proper credentialing.

Steve Ives - If your evidence that god exists relies on the Bible saying that god exists then I’ve news for you - there is more printed literature proving that Harry Potter exists.

Muhammad Rasheed - God’s criterion for being a believer is to have faith that His message is true. Only the narrow-minded insist that a matter of faith adhere to rules it was never designed to conform to. God exists because He reached out to select anointed people to pass the Word to us that it was so. The only physical evidence of this truth is the ages old body of literature that gave humans our language, our arts, our religions, and our very civilizations.

If that’s not good enough for you, then you may enjoy hellfire with my blessing.

Steve Ives - Odin and all the other gods have the same criteria. Plus god wouldn’t send me to hell because he loves everyone unconditionally, right?

Muhammad Rasheed - Your list of 4,000+ fictional deities have no criteria to compare to the One God’s guidance as we’ve established with your “I’m just messing with you” withdrawal. Focus, please.

Why are you asking me “right?” at the end of that question? Do you believe that “God loves everyone unconditionally” is a formal doctrinal line that can be found within His message? Why or why not?

Monday, August 27, 2018

When Self-Hate Pretends to Be Love, pt 03

Q: Why do black/African men seem to prefer non-black women over black women?

Muhammad Rasheed - As much as some people would like the world to think the preference is simply natural & organic, which legitimizes the false Black women stereotypes of racist origins, it s highly unlikely that this is actually true.

As legendary entertainer Eartha Kitt recounted in a heartbreaking quote, Black men have been in the habit of going after white women as a tool of social status elevation for quite some time. This practice was formalized and greatly encouraged during the Civil Rights Era, deliberately politicizing interracial relationships as one of the high-profile symbols of “progress.” Combined with the white-controlled mass media’s relentless broadcasting of European beauty standards to indoctrinate the populace, I personally feel it’s nigh-impossible for a Black man to have a “natural” preference to dislike his own ethnic group’s women. The anti-Black/pro-white programming is too strong for anything like that to be anything other than an artificial influence on a weak, self-hating mind.

Qurhon Taylor - Hol up. This is one actually makes sense. At least to my interpretation.

Renard Adriel-Janus Fields - I can't get over how they drew the YtS

Renard Adriel-Janus Fields - The motherfucking crocs!!!!


Qurhon Taylor - JUST LOOK AT IT

Mahogany Rose Walker - And his abs. Omg they drew the ultimate member of wokebook

Smith Lambre - Stop making these

Brittany FlapJaque - At least this is a good art style but man please take art away from all cis BM thanks

Smith Printemps - Ase right on

Sky Simmons - Wtf is this trying to say

Artemis Freeman - It actually has an explanation attached to it lol

Sky Simmons - Wait damn it do don’t it

Artemis Freeman - yeah I don’t think it was tryna be “one of those comics” it’s actually for black women unless I missed something while reading

Sky Simmons - That’s how I interpreted it too. Now that I know what it means I’m confused on what I thought it meant tbh

Artemis Freeman - you probably thought it was another hotep comic bc I nearly scrolled by

Dedra Cole - I see no lies !

Amber Holland - Mannnnn....


Stem AHost - Yes, it is a complete double standard. Black women have to remain loyal while he has a baby with someone outside of his race. And the mom of the baby is clueless about his animosity. I've seen this a lot. A complete double standard. You hit the nail on the head,....So true.

Dedra Cole - You telling facts

Sunday, August 26, 2018

When Self-Hate Pretends to Be Love, pt 02

Become an M. Rasheed Patreon Subscriber!

Rasheed, Muhammad. "When Self-Hate Pretends to Be Love, pt 02." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 26 Aug 2018. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

"The most fascinating point Genovese raises herealthough he does not develop itis that women often defended their men from the slave system's attempts to demean them. Most women, perhaps a substantial majority, he says, understood that whenever their men were degraded, so too were they. Furthermore,

'[t]hey wanted their boys to grow up to be men and knew perfectly well that, to do so, they needed the example of a strong black man in front of them.'" ~Angela Y. Davis, Women, Race & Class

Muhammad Rasheed - The system counters this powerful tool of the Black Family by indoctrinating Black men to turn away from Black women. Black men need to be aware of the weapons of the enemy and consciously guard themselves against them.


Q: Why are racial biases so strong in dating preferences?

Muhammad Rasheed - Western Society is dominated by the collected European ethnic tribes, who have formed a racist aristocracy across class lines known as “whiteness.” The dominant group’s preferences and norms are considered the default normal standard for society, and this is heavily reflected in mass media marketing and promotion in both blatant and subtle/subliminal forms.

Consequently, all “personal preferences” are heavily biased in every way, whether those taking part in the dating scene (or hiring, tipping, banking, etc.) realize it or not.

Kwasi Flexx Khalid - I love it

"U niggas be like"

Ashanti Ghania - It's ok. Black women do great in their careers. We just channel our energy there.

Muhammad Rasheed - With all due respect, ma'am, it's not okay.

Black people need their own media outlets, and we need to protect our children's minds from inherently hostile mass media programming.

Ashanti Ghania - Ok, sir.

jessie redd -  How you drew the white woman is actually how they be looking too

Kenneth Andre Brown Sr. - I’m going to leave it alone. But he would skip a sister for... Polly wanna...

Taurus T Hill - On point!!

James Iam - Lmao, my nigga, this shit been going on since biblical days, and I'm sure no mf was advertising white birches back then. If there wasn't a such thing a black race because they were going on extention, because of interacial relationships. But black people are still a race. Why don't you teach something more less negative. Like umm just showing how you can build from your own race of people. Oh yeah I forgot you can't u stuck on stupid with all this hatred against your slave owner. And don't know how to build a country without the needs of the shit he owns.

lil__dreamer09 - It's okay to date outside your own race. But when you purposely only date white people it's sad. They're usually self hating and very critical of their race. Every race has their struggles and diversities. It's better to acknowledge and work towards a solution.

Muhammad Rasheed - James wrote: "Lmao, my nigga, this shit been going on since biblical days..."

The "biblical days" were populated by Black people, but you were told otherwise.

Jared Walker - Must have hit a bit too close to home. If he can't see the humor in its truth, that's his problem.

I also found it funny that he is protecting the "slave master" while using the same "N word" the slavers used to dehumanize the slaves.

Perth Alacar - Get Out did it better.

Muhammad Rasheed - Did what better? Slasher/Horror film?

Jason Thomas Lam - People can love whomever they choose, despite race. It is sad to see soo many people these days seeking segregation again.

Muhammad Rasheed - This cartoon doesn't have an anti-interracial relationship message. It's questioning the legitimacy of an organic "anti-Black woman personal preference" in the midst of mass media anti-Black woman propaganda.

Jason Thomas Lam - Muhammad, I've always admired your art style and I see what you're sayin. Art being subjective, I can understand your perspective. Nobody should have to feel that their people are viewed in any lesser way than equal in the eyes of all others.

Robert Martin - But they are and thats the point.

Jason Thomas Lam - Not going to get into it here. My perspective likely differs from yours and we're each entitled to our own opinions.

Eric J Nyman - Ahhh more racist crappy from muhhamed

Christian Carnouche - Love your cartoons brother. Keep up the great work!

Roosevelt Pitt - Great!

Samal World-McNealy - I see a lot of this in the comic book artist community.

Roosevelt Pitt - As they say, hit dogs holler.

Steve Alexander-Larkin - Gotta do a cartoon on tanning beds as well!

Rallz Luthuez - This is the truth, he look like a damn fool

kreative_force - crazyness

SUBSCRIBE and receive a FREE! Weapon of the People eBook by M. Rasheed!

Saturday, August 25, 2018

When Self-Hate Pretends to Be Love, pt 01

Mark Hamric - Do some black women feel betrayed or rejected when black men prefer white women?

Muhammad Rasheed - I wouldn’t be surprised if Black women did feel betrayed by this behavior. Black men often go out of their way to parrot the hateful things white racists say about Black women, and it’s clear it’s little more than the result of centuries of "white is right!" beauty standard indoctrination, causing Black men to be the number one demographic to reject its own ethnic group's women.

During the Civil Rights Era, interracial relationships became one of the weaponized political platform items that symbolized the fight against institutionalized segregation, but the long-term effects of treating such an item as if “WE MADE IT!” function as an attack against the Black family. This is not to say that it isn’t possible for Black men to have genuine love for a white woman, but there’s a clear difference between the natural, organic growth of a blossoming male/female relationship, versus the brainwashing of politics and its tell-tale rhetoric vocalized by a mass media publicized agenda.

Khalil Malik - There's a Million stories to back this up as THE TRUTH.

Dat Dre - Message

Vernon Hampton - As a former retail manager, I've seen this from the other side of a counter. I checked a dude for his Asian girlfriend calling me a certain four letter word. That. Did. Not. Fly.

Mikaili Kamau - Sad, but sometimes true...

Jay Mac - Brah?!

Jay Mac - Salaam, how many kneeGROWS have we seen do this crap? Remember that sambo Herman Cain?

Tiffany Cooper - So true.

wright_roland - Why did do that

kreative_force - :D

Friday, August 24, 2018

Politically Weaponized Relationship (2 of 2)

Brianna Ruffin - What do black Republicans think of Donald Trump?

Muhammad Rasheed - Whatever the strictly-by-the-book Republican Party script told them to think about Trump.

Don Howard - Are there any poor or middle class black republicans? I wonder...

Muhammad Rasheed - Are you aware that the term "sell-out" refers to betraying your own values/community in exchange for earthly materials and actually has a negative connotation?

Michael Johnson - It's J.C. Watts!

Keith Hinman - I'm not convinced Ben Carson isn't dead and the Republicans aren't doing a "Weekend at Bernies" situation.

Jordan Sparks - Nah, Ben Carson is alive... But forever trapped in the Sunken Place.

Keith Hinman - @Jordan... that makes a lot of sense.

Muhammad Rasheed - (same)

William H. Foster III - Really? Seriously?

Cale Spencer III - It's funny this group lets this guy go on, when he is obviously just trying to stir shit up.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol What do you think political cartoons are supposed to do, Cale?

Muhammad Rasheed - Politics is usually a hot button topic, right?

Cale Spencer III - @Muhammad... so anything goes right?

Muhammad Rasheed - If political topics are too spicy for your sensibilities, Cale, then just scroll pass those kind of posts. Why attempt to sabotage other people's desire to see them?

Cale Spencer III - @Muhammad... it's past not pass. Maybe you should work on your English a bit.

Cale Spencer III - @Muhammad... Also you didn't answer the question.... anything goes right?

Muhammad Rasheed - What do YOU mean when you say "anything goes?"

Eric J Nyman - What he is saying Muhammad is if someone posted a political cartoon of say Maxine waters or Oprah or al Sharpton or BLM. Would you accept it as a political or find it offensive

Muhammad Rasheed - Both. If it was insulting, I would indeed find it offensive, but I would accept it and engage in the conversation. I'm all about Free Speech, you see.

Eric J Nyman - So your saying your intentionally trying to be insulting. Which brings me to my next question do you think that by doing that you are continuing any tensions that might exist if not outright increasing them

Muhammad Rasheed - lol No, I'm not saying I'm intentionally trying to be insulting. I answered the question you asked me.

Were you supposed to be making a false equivalency fallacy? My bad. I missed that part.

Eric J Nyman - No it's actually a fair question that gets asked of a lot of political cartoonists

Muhammad Rasheed - I missed that part since I'm not insulting any of your celebrity pundits.  :)

Muhammad Rasheed - ...hence, the false equivalency fallacy you dropped on me.

Muhammad Rasheed - But, anyway. I believe in Free Speech. So if that's what Cale actually meant by "anything goes," then my answer is "yes."

Eric J Nyman - I believe in free speech too.

Muhammad Rasheed - Come at me, bro.

Muhammad Rasheed - M. Rasheed versus Eric J Nyman & Cale Spencer III. #HandicapMatch

Eric J Nyman - I'm not trying to come at you in just trying to understand your point of view. Not everything is an attack. There are actually some people with open minds willing to have a conversation

Muhammad Rasheed - What fun is the political cartoonist life if everything ISN'T an attack. 😫

Muhammad Rasheed - #lame

Eric J Nyman - So you you just answered my question your intentionally trying to incite . Which means your part of the problem good to know

Muhammad Rasheed - You just answered my unasked question of whether Eric has a sense of humor or not.

Obviously that would be a "no."

Muhammad Rasheed - Political cartoons satirize what's actually going on in society. If you happen to support the political landscape item the cartoon is caricaturing, then naturally I would expect you to react.

If you want to shut down Freedom of Expression because of it, that makes you the bad guy. FYI.

Eric J Nyman - I do have a sense of humor but was actually trying to have a serious conversation with you. I find political cartoons interesting

Muhammad Rasheed - Define "interesting" from your point of view, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - I can have a serious discussion while simultaneously flexing my sense of humor muscle. I suggest all those who desire to engage to be flexible in this regard.

Eric J Nyman - As an artist interesting to means. What was the creator thinking. We're they being topical or is there a personal connection too the content

Eric J Nyman - Problem with sense of humor muscle for me is I don't have that luxury in today's society. A sad fact

Muhammad Rasheed - Be careful. Cale hates typos. He may think you are stupid because of that post.

Eric J Nyman - Lol I'm typing from a phone he'll have to deal

Muhammad Rasheed - Eric wrote: "Problem with sense of humor muscle for me is I don't have that luxury in today's society."

TRANSLATION: "Jokes aren't funny unless they have the 'n-word' generously sprinkled throughout."

Eric J Nyman - I actually never use that word

Eric J Nyman - ...unless you mean the f word that I use all the time 😁

Fidel M Love - @Eric... then why don't you have the "luxury" of a sense of humor muscle? It did seem like you were trying to say you can't tell a joke without racist accusations being hurled at you. And why would your jokes be considered racist?

Eric J Nyman - @Fidel... I've honestly never made a racist joke. I'm referring more to the fact the most people are so pc and sensitive today. I grew up in an era where everybody black white Hispanic etc busted each other's chops and then laughed and had a beer or whatever. These days it's like everybody can make a joke or a one liner but doesn't have a thick enough skin or a sense of humor to take a joke in return

Cale Spencer III - Nevermind just looked at the admins for the group no wonder this shit passes muster.

Muhammad Rasheed - How do you determine whether a topic is 'shit' or not? What are you using as your metric?

Muhammad Rasheed - Obviously you personally don't care for political debate. Is your personal feels enough to objectively say something is 'shit' or not?

Cale Spencer III - Muhammad, it's not going to change anything. Just saw where even when people make the point you just avoid answers. Also noticed that the admin group on here lacks diversity as well.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your personal feelings aren't going to change anything? Do you think they should?

Muhammad Rasheed - Other people are willingly engaging in political discussions, you personally don't like political discussions, and believe everyone should stop.

That sounds fair and right to you?

Mic Worthy - Cale, if you don't like it, scroll past it. There's a lot of crap that gets posted on this page that I let fly. You're free to leave if you don't like it. You didn't have to respond to Muhammad Rasheed, but you did. Says a lot about who you are without even meeting you in person.

Again, if you don't like a certain post, why give it your attention? This is not your group, just like this is not your country. You were led to believe that it is because nobody stepped to you and challenged you. Take a seat, Cale. A stadium of seats for that butthurt ass.

Michael Johnson - I don't understand where some people comment on topics in which they clearly don't have an interest. It especially doesn't make sense on a community page when people have the option of turning off certain notifications. A person is posting something on your personal page of which you disapprove is one thing; acting like you're some de facto administration of a community page when you're not is another thing.

Muhammad Rasheed - Obviously they desire to control the narrative flow of how those kinds of topics are discussed. Naturally I disagree that they should have such power since I'm an #antiracism fellow.  :)

Michael Johnson - Basically, they have more of a problem with the problem being presented instead of the topic itself. It has more to do with their personal comfort zone and an apparent inability to articulate an argument for or against the topic.

Muhammad Rasheed - Agreed.

I'll pray that God forgives them of their peculiar, self-inflicted psychosis.

Mic Worthy - I'm going to lock this thread no because people like to comment on posts they claim they don't like instead of ignoring them. This is a group where you can promote your comics and cartoons.

I don't care who or what you support. Show respect to each other. If you see a post at you don't like, scroll by it. Don't even wait your time responding to it. Just keep it moving.

As for Cale Spencer III, bro you don't have to respond to every post you don't like. If it makes you uncomfortable, that's a subjective issue you have to deal with. So deal with yourself and let the rest of us live.

If you have a problem with the Admins of this group, stop talking out the side of your neck and address me directly. If you feeling salty about it, you can always go ahead and utilize that "Leave Group" button.

Mic Worthy
PYCC Founder/Admin

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Politically Weaponized Relationship (1 of 2)

Charlie Fortin - Is interracial marriage the solution to racism?

Muhammad Rasheed - I fail to see how that would be possible, especially since people have defied authority and married across racial lines since as far back as during the height of chattel slavery. The civil rights era introduced the interracial marriage weaponized as a political hot button, and even though there are now more racially-mixed couple than ever before, racism itself hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s actually worse than ever.

People often severely underestimate—or deny altogether—the economic root cause of racism, and how it is the main system for wealth generation in the West. Used to build and maintain the white racist aristocracy, the white mainstream dominant culture uses systemic racism both for artificially elevated status, and to secure their political-economic advantage as reflected in the ever-widening wealth gap.

Because of these items, any idea that racism will vanish if we all just “love one another” in a “color blind” mentality, is little more than silly and naive fantasy, 100% divorced from our reality. The only way to rid our society of racism is to dismantle the anti-Black systemic racism structure itself, and payout Reparation Justice to the Black people who’ve been wronged for these several centuries—politically disenfranchised and plundered to prevent them from building wealth over generations.

Brandon Walker - Do you ever draw any comics that aren't hate-based? (i've noticed you disabled comments on your posts lol)

Brandon Walker - Like, we get hate white people and you hate yourself.

Matt Ravencroft - I'm sure if we looked at political comics from the late 30's they'd look a lot like this, only about Jews. This is nothing but divisive bullshit.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hi, Brandon. Hi, Matt.

1.) None of my comics are hate-based. They have an anti-racism focus that I've found some people interpret as hate-based because they oddly can't or won't discern the difference between European-descended ethnic groups versus anti-Black systemic racism.

2.) I haven't disabled any comments on any of my posts.

3.) Creating satired editorial cartoons that reflect the divisive, racist reality of society isn't being divisive.

Keith Hinman - @Matt... Except he's not saying all white people are racist. They are clearly all wearing KKK hoods or wearing Confederate Flags or some other symbol that has come to represent hate and racism. He's targeting groups who have made a choice to be racist and embrace hate.

And we should absolutely be divisive when it comes to racist groups.

Matt Ravencroft - Every strip is about how racist white people are, hoods or not. It's a blatant disparaging of an entire race, how is that not racist?

Muhammad Rasheed - You can't see the difference between targeting a specific hate-fueled ideology inside of the white community versus attacking all white people, Matt? You can't see the difference, or you refuse to see the difference in order to create the false 'victimized' narrative of your agenda?

Keith Hinman - @Matt... It's not though. I'm white and I don't feel attacked at all. The fact of the matter is that we have a problem - have always had a problem - but right now there's a very visible problem of out and proud racists.

We, white people, are seeing this now and more and more. We're seeing more people who look like us marching with polo shirts and tiki torches. We're seeing guys who look like us with SS tattoos or swastikas. We see people who look like us voting for people like Trump. And now it's in our face and it's reminding us that there's a problem.

Because we had the luxury of ignoring it before. Hell, I don't think I'm a racist. Neither do you probably. I'm a good person, we had a black president, racism was dying out and we're all good. But we were slapped in the face with this reality, a reality that people of color have dealt with for decades. And this instinct to draw back and get defensive and take offense when someone like Muhammad points out that shit is still not okay.

But it's not an attack on us. As far as I can see it, it's our responsibility to hear what he has to say. Understand that is his life experience and be aware that maybe this society isn't as equitable as we thought and then wonder what we can do to make sure that shit gets better.

But that doesn't happen if we see someone else's perspective, take offense to it, reject it and then pretend like everything is fine.

Kenneth Lewis - um she would be smiling not crying

Tyler Nereim - It's difficult to draw value from such exaggerated caricature and it almost feels hostile towards interracial relationships in general. Which is kinda messed up.

Muhammad Rasheed - This was actually the caricatured response a guy posted at me yesterday when the discussion revealed he was indeed a hardcore racist. He felt that his Black gf meant it was impossible for him to be a racist and that I had embarrassed myself with the charge.

Tyler Nereim - What did he say that flagged him as a bigot?

Muhammad Rasheed - Based on their backgrounds and the subjective lens people see political cartoons through, they often tend to project what they consider the true & definitive meaning upon them. Proclaiming that the point of view they applied is "kinda messed up" because they decided that their interpretation is what I actually intended -- without confirmation from the artist either way -- is kinda messed up to me.

Muhammad Rasheed - But it's normal. I'm just saying as a general PSA observation. lol

Tyler Nereim - I mean given that I had no context into how it relates back to your personal experience, I can only read it like I see it. And context being absent, it looks like it's making the claim that white men in interracial relationships are closeted bigots only doing so to smoke screen their bigoted views.

Tyler Nereim - Which if a piece is unable to convey certain ideas without additional clarification (which is itself absent from the piece), the piece should be revised.

Muhammad Rasheed - The guy thought it was 100% okay, and NOT stupid as POTUS44 said, for a random neighbor to call the police on a Black man in his own home because the neighbor thought the Black man looked like a burglar, and for the police to go in the home, cuff the Black man, and hold him until they ran whatever reports they felt like running. In an earlier thread, the same guy thought it was unacceptable for the police to rough up and arrest a white man for leaping out of his car, putting his hands in his pockets in a clearly threatening manner, and being a jackass.

This hypocrisy was classic racism in action.

Muhammad Rasheed - The piece will never be revised. Art is subjective, Tyler. Everyone will read into it whatever they want to, and I can't hold everyone's hand and walk them through it. It's normal for people to do it and it's actually okay.

I only said something now because I'm feeling a little testy because of some offline stuff.

Tyler Nereim - I can respect a non-revisionist attitude towards your work, but perhaps my words can be food for thought for future art pieces.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your comments are acknowledged and appreciated. The piece will not be revised because of viewer comments. If I made that a policy, I would only have a single multiple-revised cartoon under my belt. lol It's best to draw 'em, post 'em, and move on to the next one. #Dassit

Muhammad Rasheed - FYI... Viewer comments are often the raw reference material I draw upon to create new works though, such as the cartoon above.

Tyler Nereim - Perhaps you might consider doing a side piece that is a little more involved, like a long form work that you spend additional time on next to your more impromptu style work. Like an experimental narrative that stretches beyond single frame storytelling.

Tyler Nereim - Oh dear, hopefully I've not landed myself as the subject of your next comic. :/

Muhammad Rasheed - I actually have a graphic novel planned using the afro'd activist family from this series.

Jason Pell - Are you in part implying that a black woman can't decide to be in an interracial relationship of her own free will? (Her sad expression and the noose.) Do you pity those women? Are you disgusted by them? Just curious.

Muhammad Rasheed - I was in an argument yesterday with a hardcore, very hypocritical, racist, who decided to weaponize his interracial relationship as a "gotcha." In the photo he posted, she had a look on her face that was easily interpreted as "Why me, God?? WHY???" The impression it left on me was comically quite different than what the poster had intended.

So I caricatured it for today's editorial gag.

Jason Pell - So you'd be fine with a happily married interracial couple then. Gotcha.

Muhammad Rasheed - A "happily married interracial couple" is none of my business.

All subject matter is fair game as I am moved to create. This guy tossed his private business within my killzone, so I drew it. *shrug*

Jason Pell - I notice the quotation there. Do you believe that a couple, say a white man and a black girl, can be happily married?

Muhammad Rasheed - The quotations meant that whether they were happy or not, the personal business of what an adult couple wanted to do, whether successful or not, was none of my business.

I believe any couple can be happy in their relationship if they agree between themselves to make it work. That's relationships 101.

Jason Pell - It's pretty obvious you are a smart guy. And one not to give answers without thought. I get your point. I think you are perhaps being unfair to the couple (and in particular, the woman), but I understand your take and feelings on the matter. And when I asked about being "happy"..that was a mistake. I should have asked if you object to an interracial couple. But, since you are referring to a particular incident, I'll assume you have no objections against an interracial couple.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) lol Editorial cartoons can often be "unfair," Jason. They are designed to sting in order to ignite usually heated discussion. In reality, the look that was on the woman's face in the racist's photo very well could have been caused by the photographer taking too damn long to snap the pic, so when he did finally get to it, her smile had waned into what I deliberately chose to interpret as "sick & depressed."

2.) On what authority would I have to object to an adult couple's decision to get together? Are they indentured as property on my estate?

Muhammad Rasheed - I am Muslim, and believe in the God-given gift of Free Will. I object to anyone's effort to impose upon someone else's right to live their life as free as they may wish. That's why the focus of my work here is the #antiracism position.

Jason Pell - So....that's a no...? You have no personal objections? (It got a bit literal there.)

Muhammad Rasheed - I really don't understand what kind of authority you believe I have that I would have personal objections to be taken seriously by anyone. What a grown couple decides to do between themselves is literally none of my business.

Muhammad Rasheed - "The cartoonist said we can't get married cuz he doesn't think we should based on the power of cartoonists thinking we shouldn't get married."


Jason Pell - So that's a yes? You DO have personal objections against interracial couples? You certainly avoid saying yes or no. No one mentioned authority or relative importance of statements, but you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Now you're making me want to probe into your motive here to try to unearth your possible agenda so I can cartoon it...

Muhammad Rasheed - Are you an agent or official representative of The Association of Americans for the Promotion of Interracial Relationships (non-profit)?


Jason Pell - Am I in the Killzone? Oh man. That stinks. Since you refuse to answer the question, I feel you've given a pretty clear idea on how you truly feel about interracial couples. And if anyone takes the time to read this, they probably will as well.

Muhammad Rasheed
- 1.) Are you in an interracial relationship, Jason? Is that why you're so pushy over this? lol

2.) Are you in the habit of using your interracial relationship[s] as "gotchas" to magically prove you aren't a racist the way this guy did? Is that why you are acting pushy and triggered? Tell me.

Muhammad Rasheed
- I didn't refuse to answer the question. I actually did answer the question based on how I feel about Free Will, and adults adulting about stuff they have the right to adult about.

You seem to want to force my opinion in a direction that I literally don't believe in, and in fact, dislike when people proclaim faux-authority over other people's lives with their own negativity baggage. Why are you doing this? Do you hope to get a percentage of the commission fees if I join your interracial association?

Just so you know, I'm already married, so I'm unlikely to join. lol

Christian Couture - @Muhammad... I had the feeling you were muslim. Thank you for telling.
I'd like to mention, maybe you should study the history of slavery back to the starting point. Muslims SOLD slaves to europeans. This is a fact. If it weren't for them, there may not have been slavery in america at all. So your cartoons are showing some bits of truth, but a big part are kept silent.
Do some research and you'll have to agree with that. If not, nothing I can do.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hi, Christian. Thanks for reaching out again.

I am very well-versed in the history of slavery across the globe, which includes the ability to discern between the version practiced among the Arabs in the Muslim world, and the unique racial phenotype chattel slavery of the West, that is the foundation structure of our exploitative, anti-free market crony capitalism system of today.

Christian Couture - Thank you! So you know about the origin of slavery! ;)

Muhammad Rasheed - lol The Arabs didn't originate the concept of slavery, since it is mentioned in the pre-Abrahamic bible.

The specific chattel slavery based on racial phenotype that the USA is most familiar with originated with the cartel that involved the Dutch East India Company and established the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. That version of slavery was unique in all the world, and during the time period was given the moniker "peculiar institution."

Christian Couture - Then if you are very well versed in that part of history, your cartoons show otherwise.

Muhammad Rasheed - That version of slavery that the American whites prefer I deflect to isn't responsible for racism in the West. Contrary to popular belief, the Arab is not a white group. They are Black with clusters of them lighter-skinned from a more recent Persian infusion.

My body of work is #antiracism focused. It's not intended as a general "World History" text. I'm sure you can find others who are into that type of slavery if you genuinely would like to know more about it and aren't just wanting me to shut up about the racism thing. lol

Christian Couture - Don't worry, I don't want nobody to shut up. I only wish to understand your motive to witch you have the right to do so. Plus I'm an art lover from all origins, black white or any part of the world. I even encourage you to continue drawing knowing that in some part of the muslim world it is forbidden. Just want you to know that many white peoples, not only are not racists, but also love black people. Maybe you could add up some of that idea to your own drawings as well, unless you feel otherwise.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) I suppose this new spin job I keep encountering -- that pretends everybody was responsible for the Black American's exploited state except the Euro-ethnic tribes that profited from it -- is part of the strategy to get out of paying the Reparations justice that are due (and building). I carefully note the ways in which "the Arabs invented slavery you know?!" arguments are presented to me to see if they are improving in quality. Since they are not, it would appear that my rivals' plan is to just cheat and force that viewpoint in the books to at least lessen the amount that will eventually be paid. #DirtyPoolOleMan

2.) Here's a couple arguments I've had over the years where I've defended my freedom to draw as I please from some confused cultural Muslims using my powers of scriptural analysis, if you are interested: "...having taught man the use of the Pen"

3.) My #antiracism fight isn't against all white people, but against the supporters of the toxic White Supremacist Ideology. There are many, many others focused on creating bodies of work designed to present the good side of white people, Christian, and that includes the multi-billion dollar entertainment industries. They certainly don't need my help in indoctrinating the world in believing whites never do any wrong ever. I find your request unreasonable. My advice, should you find my gloomy cartoons getting you down and negatively affecting your self esteem, is to just go over to Twitter and see what ole 45 is posting about. I'm sure he would never, ever say anything bad about white people. :)

Christian Couture - Though your words are contradicting yourself somehow, I don't care. You do what you want. I thought we had a good discussion here, but you seem a bit annoyed with history itself. Keep drawing man, but don't expect the world will applause your work of art.
With that said. take care and have a good day!

Muhammad Rasheed - Show me where you see the contradictions, please, that I may analyze them.

It's not my job to coddle the feelings of white people, Christian. Not while there are state-sanctioned armed thugs wearing "I CAN breathe" t-shirts as they shoot my babies to death while a majority of civilian whites justify why it's okay. I am not the one.

Take care. Have a great day.

Contempt for the Defanged Movement

Roderick Bryant - I see the reincarnation of "The Dark Knight Rises" comin'...

The Dark Knight Rises - Bane Blackgate Prison Speech

Muhammad Rasheed - We were perhaps inspired from the same research threads...

Roderick Bryant - The 1% controls 90% of the wealth in this country; that CAN'T be right...

Muhammad Rasheed - It's not the country. It's 90% of the whole world's wealth.

The primary tool of the 1% legacy family is the hoarding monopoly -- selfishly amassing wealth by closing off the markets to prevent competition -- favored by corporate since the Dutch East India Company. A billionaire class wouldn't be possible without it.

Roderick Bryant - Wow.

Gary Haire - Why are there many talking about how people of color can improve race relations with the police, instead of eliminating bad cops?

Muhammad Rasheed - The for-profit private prison industry that helped replace the lost streams of income after the abolishing of chattel slavery, needs the white supremacist police departments to capture new Black flesh to feed into the system. Consequently, the official position of the U.S. government is that the cops can do no wrong as long as they meet their slave taking 2.0 quotas, and no amount of civil discourse on any level will improve the people’s relationship with that organization.

Daniel Hart - To some degree, this is a valid argument. It applies to all minorities, however. Whites are far less likely to be arrested than African Americans or members of other minorities. Once arrested, members of minorities are far more likely to be wrongfully convicted than whites.

From Study: Black people more likely to be wrongfully convicted

(It has been argued that a white male who has been wrongfully convicted is far less likely to be exonerated or to receive legal assistance, but even if this were proven true it does not change the fact that members of minorities are far more likely to be arrested in the first place.)

Private prisons are a problem most Americans are blind to. Prisoners they hold spend more time incarcerated than those in state or federal prisons. There is little to no oversight. Private Prisons Lock Up Thousands Of Americans With Almost No Oversight They profit from holding more prisoners longer, and by cutting corners in every way possible. They are a problem, but this problem is a symptom of the much larger problem.

Law enforcement agencies function with little to no independent oversight. The police pretty much police themselves. While the great majority of law enforcement personnel do their jobs with dignity and in accordance with the law, there are those who place themselves above the law; and unfortunately, these “bad cops” are shielded by the “blue wall” the “good cops” are afraid to cross. There are not many Serpicos. This is another problem, another symptom.

Prosecutors are not after truth, they are after convictions. Many prosecutors will do whatever it takes to gain a conviction, even when they know the defendant is innocent The Untouchables: America's Misbehaving Prosecutors, And The System That Protects Them. This is another problem, yet is but one more symptom.

The real problem is that our justice system is broken. The US holds a higher percentage of its population behind bars than any other nation. Here Are All Of The Nations That Incarcerate More Of Their Population Than The U.S. Does this mean that we have more criminals than any other nation? Surely not. It means that we lock more people away than any other nation. A disproportionate number of those we lock away are non-white.

Can our system be fixed? Yes, but only by working together. Not by using the hatred and bias endemic in our society to create more hatred and bias.

Muhammad Rasheed - Daniel wrote: “Not by using the hatred and bias endemic in our society to create more hatred and bias.”

I don’t have to hate to use my Right to Bear Arms to defend myself, my family and my community from evil domestic threats, Daniel.

Daniel Hart - I do hope you read the rest of my comment, Muhammad.

I have had friends victimized by the very racial bias which so frustrates and angers you. I have watched helplessly as families of some of those friends were torn apart. Some would say it does not affect me personally, but it does. Only by working together, can we heal the rifts in our society.

Violence breeds more violence, hatred more hate.

Muhammad Rasheed - I hold the rudimentary freedoms I possess today because of the rivers of blood that flowed during the Civil War, Daniel. Despite your caricatured MLK non-violent cliche, the documented evidence of history reveals that violence breeds FREEDOM.

Daniel Hart - I’m a grumpy old white man, Muhammad. I am not an uneducated redneck living an insular life. I have known people of all races, all religions, most nationalities, gay and straight. I have been in places where I was hated or mistrusted for no reason.

I regret that you feel violence can be an answer to anything. If I believed in a god, I would pray for you. I do not feel sympathy for you, for you are among those humans who keep the kettle boiling, so to speak.

I will not accuse you of racism, though you have given me an excuse to do so. This question was about race relations with the police, not the civil war or blood shed to end slavery and grant freedom to all Americans. (The civil war was necessary to end slavery, but it was not a race war.) Neither you nor I were around to take part in the Civil War, but we are both here now. Neither you nor I have any responsibility for anything which took place before our births, but we share a responsibility with all Americans for what takes place now.

One can choose whether to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.

By the way, Dr. King was a man I always looked up to and respected.

Daniel Hart - Can you offer possible solutions to the endemic racism in America?

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure.
  • STEP ONE: Implement a Black Economic Boycott. Black Americans will withdraw the force of their spending power, until their demands are met. Those demands should consist of an immediate dismantling of the anti-Black systemic racism structure with its correlating payout of Reparations justice.
  • STEP TWO: The withdrawal of the Black dollar, and the ceasing of all exploitative white > Black plundering will cause a collapse in the American economy. The poor and middle class whites will take a major hit and will be FURIOUS.
  • STEP THREE: The number of white supremacist terror attacks against Blacks will increase out of resentment mirroring the national racial tension experienced during the abolishing of slavery and the socio-political rise of Black people during Reconstruction.
  • STEP FOUR: White people will start the Civil War sequel to reclaim their white racist aristocracy. Black people will need to come together and defend themselves. I suggest they do so as righteous believers under the Name of the One God.
  • STEP FIVE: In the aftermath of the war, we will rebuild the nation’s economy once again. This time—using the lessons learned from the last Civil War—we’ll need to diligently guard against the rebirth of white supremacy, and stamp it out completely whenever it attempts to return.

Daniel Hart - Thanks for your answer, Muhammad.

So, you see the solution as war. I hope your life brings you wisdom to see that is not an answer.

Hatred and violence will never heal what is wrong with our society today. Find a constructive path, not a destructive one. You would burn a forest to remove a few sick trees.

There is but one human race, and if you cannot see that, you are little different from the white supremacists you speak of.

It is not just black people who need to come together, it is all Americans.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) I owe the rudimentary freedoms I possess today to the rivers of blood that flowed during the Civil War. The dominant culture will never willingly give up their systemic racism based wealth and power monopoly.

2.) I have my Right to Bear Arms to defend myself from threats both foreign and domestic. I don’t have to hate anybody to defend myself from a greed-fueled enemy who has seen me as his economically-preferred prey for 500 yrs. Your insistence that I am expressing hatred with this analysis only reveals you to be the mouthpiece of the very domestic threat I am armed against. Please improve.

3.) The constructive path is to use the leverage of my great Black Spending Power to pressure the white moneyed classes into the immediate ceasing of anti-Black systemic racism, and to payout the Reparations justice owed me for the infliction of that systemic racism. History has shown that it is the white race themselves who will wage war in murderous fury for the loss of their artificially-elevated racist status, so it is not me you should be pleading to keep calm. YOU keep calm.

4.) We can come together after the socio-political and economic inequalities based on racial phenotype are cured. The subjugation and exploitation of Black people by white people is the source of the conflict. The source of the conflict is NOT my anger at the continuing plunder of my communities to maintain the white racist aristocracy. The more you speak as if that is the source of the conflict—that I’M the one that needs to stop being angry at the wrongs continuously inflicted upon me by your people—then the coming together you speak of will be impossible to attain.

5.) Today, the Black community is fragmented and scattered in ways it was never found to be in the past. This was by design, so that the most vulnerable classes of Blacks would be easier prey for the mass incarceration, for-profit private prison industry. We DO need to come together above all else, if only for our own protection against our traditional enemy who seeks only to increase his wealth hoards at our expense.

Muhammad Rasheed - We will never disagree more on these points. You believe the polar opposite of what the historical record actually reveals.

Daniel Hart - History is there for us to learn from, not for us to keep repeating.

Muhammad Rasheed - Daniel, then tell me how we will not repeat the evils of the past by ignoring the very lessons therein?

Racists were snapped to heel with both violence and the economic boycott, yet people just like you have preached against both violence and the economic boycott in the last 50 yrs. Now I find myself terrorized by the domestic threat of the Fraternal Order of Police, my communities are destroyed by high-level government policies that are somehow blamed on ME, and the infamous wealth gap is wider than ever. The 1% legacy families and their crony managerial classes feed upon the Black community to maintain their wealth hoards—are NOT shy about waging war against other people to do the same— and yet you want me to believe that holding hands and playing footsie for another 50 yrs will magically cure all of that.

Daniel Hart - No, Muhammad, I do not want you to hold hands and play footsie. I want you to play an active role in educating the public, in using your voice to bring change. I want you and other angry young men to set aside your anger and work together to put people in public office who will help to make change - and yes, that means exercising your right to vote. It may mean standing for public office yourself. It certainly means giving up the angry rhetoric. It may mean joining a police department and working to make change from the inside.

It cannot happen overnight, Muhammad. Much change has taken place in my lifetime, however - I remember seeing the “whites only” signs travelling through the south. You mentioned Dr. King. Young people today can have no more than a vague idea of the obstacles he and others faced in their lifetimes.

The civil rights movement is far from dead, yet it will make slow progress if the people involved spend most of their time yelling or fighting. A conversation is effectively over when the shouting starts. Anger breeds anger, not understanding.

Muhammad Rasheed - The civil rights movement has made slow progress precisely because the economic boycott, the Right to Bear Arms against domestic threats, and the fight for Reparations justice were taken off the table because the activists started listening to toxic philosophies like yours. I’ll be 50 yrs old in another couple of years, Daniel, and I know the history of race relations in the West. The more you attempt to gaslight me with your ideologies that have proven again and again and again to be sabotage to the movement, the angrier you make me.

Daniel Hart - I give up, Muhammad. You are a lost cause. You refuse to open your eyes, so let’s drop it there.

Muhammad Rasheed - I have zero interest in your cause, which judging from your posts, is obviously the support of white supremacy from the leftist infiltrator position.

Next time lead with that.

Daniel Hart - You are so wrong on many counts. You do not owe your freedoms to the blood shed in that war or since.

You owe your freedoms to the people who shed that blood, and to the society to which they belonged, mostly white people. You owe your freedoms to people like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others - including the white people who stood with them and peacefully (for the most part) ended segregation. Your talk of violence (and that of many more young men and women like you) feeds the very racism you protest.

Economic pressure is the only constructive idea you have offered, perhaps the only one you can conceive while so blinded by hatred and with such a distorted view of history.

You are far too well educated to be so closed-minded. That is obvious. Do not let your ability to learn be wasted.

Muhammad Rasheed - Daniel wrote: "You do not owe your freedoms to the blood shed in that war or since."

Sure, I do.

The fact that you insist upon interpreting my pushback against the very violent and demonic white supremacy as “blind hatred” means that your opinions on this topic lack value. Defending myself from attack is righteousness. There's literally nothing wrong with doing so, and I certainly don't have to hate in order to defend hearth & home from savage, mammon-worshiping demons. Your desire to disarm me so that my diabolical enemy can molest me at will makes you my enemy. I believe you fully realize this and are playing the role of the snake.

That’s enough, Daniel. Please go away.

See Also: Interviewed by a Vampyr