Allah and Indigenous “Anarchy”

As a nation, we the Gods and Earths do not have any specific political outlook. As a collective, we are apolitical. This can turn into ‘apathy’ without the proper education. We are not a religion nor or we an ‘organization’. We are a ‘nation’ of men, women and children who live according to some basic esoteric teachings, taught and understood through their parallel with mathematical and alphabetic principles defined by our founder, Allah. However, we can not be strangers to organization. We have organization, really only visible to those ‘within’ the culture.

Allah could have been considering a patriot. He was more a champion for education and ‘civilization’. By civilization I mean the forward progression of ‘Man’ and his abilities to master himself and what he produces through space and time. While other black groups, so called ‘militants’, were concerned with bringing down the white establishment, Allah worked hand in hand with Major John V. Lindsay and his aid, Barry Gotherer. Allah secured airplane rides, bus trips to Bear Mountain, trips to the beach and a host of other activities for his young Five Percenters, courtesy of the “city of New York”. While many radicals dismiss these services and the funds allocated for them as mere ploys from the city government, Allah didn’t care. Allah was focused on his “fruit” and making sure they had the best, considering they came from having ‘nothing’. Allah wasn’t a democrat or republican. He was simply familiar with the laws of the land. He was a hustler and knew how to get what he needed. Especially when it came to the youth. He was more concerned with sending children to college that ‘separating’ them from all that society could offer them. They were already separating because they were poor and black. And by “society could offer them” I mean an education and advancement in society. And he did this, on his terms. He didn’t teach the children to hide who they were or sacrifice his teachings just so they could “pass” through society. Allah instilled in them a respect for the American flag and the government, yet made distinctions as to certain laws to acknowledge and obey, as long as they didn’t conflict with ‘our’ laws. He didn’t advocate marriage under the government nor did he recognize the government’s authority to ‘tell’ or someone who they are or define them. He called himself Allah and didn’t care who liked it. He even represented himself as “Allah” in front of the judge prior to going to Bellevue and Mattewan State Hospital.

Allah would work with anyone who could help him further his agenda for his sons and daughters. And by virtue of interacting and meeting compromises with city and government officials he was ‘political’. Irregardless to how some may feel about it.

Allah taught us to be leaders and therefore we have no ‘central’ lead figure. Yet, we do have leadership. Those qualified with moving forward with certain issues and actions. We have no hierarchy, except between the ‘best knower’ and those ‘seeking to know’. Which means, I will openly accept direction and suggestions from someone who ‘knows’ more than me or is more qualified in a certain area. Allah freed us from hierarchy by revealing to us the reality of GOD, and that being every Original man. Thus, each man is the ruler of his own life and universe (family). With no external force or entity having dominion over ones’ self. This concept is very ‘anarchist’. And by ‘anarchist’ I do not mean “chaotic” but in the original context and meaning of the word. Many of us, in our quest to free ourselves from the shackles of society-one being labels, are so opposed to many words and ‘labels’ just due to their Eurocentric origin alone. However, there is truth in all things.

“Look at their breakdown of society: 10 percent of the population rules by deceiving 85 percent into believing in a false mystery god that doesn’t exist. The remaining 5 percent reject the lies of this evil 10 percent (the priests, imams, etc.). So when they say they’re God, it’s almost like an anarchist view of religion. Faced with the bullshit of organized religion, the anarchist says, “no gods, no masters.” Reacting to the same bullshit, the Five Percenter says, “I God, I Master.” This can be very empowering.”- interview with author, Michael Muhammad Knight, on “Waking the Midnight Sun” blog

Since, we are ‘apolitical’ and being endowed with the ability of ‘free thought and action’, each citizen of the Nation of Gods and Earths has the right to chose for themselves their specific political outlook. Some are more conservative, some are more democratic. I, personally, am a self-proclaimed “anarcho-socialist”. I’ve identify the relevancy of Socialism within the context of 120 degrees due to certain concepts within the lessons. For example, the 8th degree in the 1-14:

“Why does the Devil keep our people apart from their own social equality?”
Ans: Because he is filthy in all his affairs. He is afraid that once we learn about him we will run him from amongst us. Social means to advocate a society of men or group of men for one common cause. Equality means to be equal in everything.

Socialism means, for me, that social issues and responsible are of a greater importance to the longevity and welfare of a society than capital. Yet and still, regardless to what one’s political outlook may be, we must still be familiar with the principles of capitalism and adept in it to some degree in order to survive in ‘this’ society. To be ‘socialist’ to many is to give all power to the state, which isn’t the reality. That may have been a ‘Eurocentric’ perspective and application of ‘socialism’ but it’s different from what Hugo Chavez is attempting in Venezuela and what Daniel Ortega is doing in Nicaragua by the creation and perpetuation of communal councils. The adoption of these councils gives more power to the people and is considered ‘democracy’ by the western world. Democracy, as defined through it’s Greek origin, means to “rule by the people”. The United States is far from that. And so was Greece, a slave-based economy and society. Yet, that definition of democracy is what “anarchy” really is and means. Within the Nation of Gods and Earths, each city or cipher agrees (collectively) on particular policy in that city. Within each man’s home, he decides the rules and policy of how the house is run. And this, whether acknowledged by the majority or not, is ‘anarchism’. Our internal structure is very anarchistic and an understanding of this will allow a citizen within the nation to identify the process and channels of change here and how to harness this seemingly “lack of organization” and transform it into productivity. As opposed to feeling like no one is ‘listening to them’ and that they are against the odds. This is coming from someone who was involved with the original Growth and Development proposition and the establishing of regions and regional conferences within the nation. An anarchist styled proposition fortifying individual rights and merging/balancing with collective responsibilities, in and of itself. Not ‘anarchist’ in that we are striving to overthrow the government. “Anarchist” in that we seek to gather of collective resources and network these resources in order to create the best possible quality of life for ourselves and our children. Ruling over ourselves and our ‘destiny’.

Below, I can included an excerpt from Jack Weatherford’s book “Indian Givers: How The Indians of the Americas Transformed The World”, to bring forth further understanding of where the term “anarchy” come from. Please Read on. Do the knowledge…

“To an outsider, such powwows often appear chaotic. Even though posted signs promise that the dances will begin at four o’clock, there is still no dancing at five-thirty. Drummers scheduled to play never arrive, and some groups drum without being on the program. Impromptu family ceremonies intertwine with the official scheduled events, and the microphone passes among a score of announcers during the evening. No one is in control. (Sounds very similar to a Universal Parliament.)

This seems to be typical of Indian community events: no one is in control. No master of ceremonies tells everyone what to do, and no one orders the dancers to appear. The announcer acts as herald or possibly as facilitator of ceremonies, but no chief rises to demand anything of anyone. The event flows in an orderly fashion like hundreds of powwows before it, but leaders can only lead by example, by pleas, or by exhortations. Everyone shows great respect for elders and for warriors, who are repeatedly singled out for recognition, but at the same time children receive great respect for dancing and even the audience receives praise for watching.” - page 120 and 121

Further more….

“Writing a little later in the sixteenth century, the French essayist Michel de Montaigne presented a similar description of American Indian life based primarily on the early reports from Brazil. In his essay “On Cannibals,” Montaigne wrote that they are “still governed by natural laws and very little corrupted by our own.” He specifically cited their lack of magistrates, forced services, riches, poverty, and inheritance. As in More’s utopia, Brazil, emerged as the ideal place and Indians as having created the ideal society [Montaigne, pp. 109-10]. Most of these early writings contained strongly satirical veins- the writers indicated that even the so-called savages lives better than civilized Europeans- but the satire grew out of the unavoidable truth that the technologically simple Indians usually lived in more just, equitable, and egalitarian social conditions.

Not until a century after Montaigne did the first French ethnography on the North American Indians appear. Louis Armand de Lom d’Arce, Baron de Lahontan, wrote several short books on the Huron Indians of Canada based on his stay with them from 1683 to 1694. An adventurer far more than an anthropologist, Lahontan nevertheless managed to rise above the genre of adventure stories to give the French reader the worldview of the Hurons from inside the Indian mind. By the time of Lahontan’s sojourn among the Hurons, they had already survived several decades of sporadic interaction with European explorers and traders, and they had been the subject of numerous commentaries by Jesuit Missionaries. From these interactions the Hurons were able to compare their own way of life and the Europeans’. The Indians particularly decried the European obsession with money that compelled European women to sell their bodies to lusty men and compelled men to sell their lives to the armies of greedy men who used them to enslave yet more people. By contrast, the Hurons lived a life of liberty and equality. According to the Hurons, the Europeans lost their freedom in their incessant use of “thine” and “mine”.

One of the Hurons explained to Lahontan, “We are born free and united brothers, each as much a great lord as the other, while you are all slaves of one sole man. I am the master of my body, I dispose of myself, I do what I wish, I am the first and last of my Nation…subject only to the great Spirit [Brandon, p.90]. It is difficult to tell where the Huron philosopher speaks and where Lahontan may be promoting his own political philosophy, but still the book rested on a base of solid ethnographic fact: the Hurons lived without social classes, without a government separate from their kinship system, and without private property. To describe this political situation, Lahontan revived the Greek-derived word “anarchy”, using it in the literal sense meaning “no ruler”. Lahontan found an orderly society, but one lacking a formal government that compelled such order.”

More on Indigenous people and our modern political system, later…..

PEACE