The Appeals Process for Mr. York....

[Nubian Ninjah]

u just reminded me of how the yamasee plot was hatched.....I was on the land when york brought us the plan...he said that there was a blank spot in the white man's history that relates to the creek/yammasee native americans and we (nuwaupians) can place ourselves in that history and then pursue soverienty. i may not be quoting right and exact but he did this at a public meeting of (nuwaupians).....

[Brownbonnet]

hey Brother Eugene---
is this when he (yorkmeister) started the native american thing?
for all:
I attended the American Native Indian exhibit in Indianapolis at the Eiteljorg Museum. This exhibit showcased the Black-Indian tribes in the U.s.
I asked extensively about the blacks in eatonton ga who claim to be yamassee creek muskogee. I got an earful from a creek sister. She informed me, amongst many other things, that the folks in the nuwupic group are unable to accurately exhibit their own creek background. they were unable to prove that they are and have been an existing entity, a community that lived on Yamassee/yemassee lands. A continual existing community. They would have been recognized by the real Creeks, and also even if they the new wawpix hadn't received FEDERAL recognition. They still would have been recognized by the Creek, and the Poarch Creek. Good stuff on the Dawes Rolls, Ralph--- you are on point with the facts.
Thass what Ahm talkin!
The sister at the exhibit discussed at overlong length with me in our small ciphercell group---- we were discussing Native american frauds and york was almost #1.
Basically, if you want to be Creek, then you must have a relative (mother, father, grandmother, et al) in your DIRECT descendancy (not your couzin's mama's neice's aunty's daddy's brotha) who is Listed on the Dawes Rolls. That is how the Creek people recognize themselves. Don't get noshpanna with me---- take it up with the Creeks.
Also, to be Yamassee( that word brought guffaws) you must prove your bloodline through your mama. Also, you have to be existing as a Yemassee for the last 7 or eight generations. You have to have some docs from the existing Seminole---- they have the info about families and family names. You can also contact the Creeks. But you new wawpix won't do that, now would you? You don't wanna get smacked down for your lying and slander on the yamassee. You would get laffed outta the room if you walk up to the Seminole and started your yammaseeing with them. They'd get to asking you all sorts of questions, and you'd all get spun in circles. They'd go "seminole" on you.
Now, with the creek, if you can prove by NAME and BIRTH record that you are Creek by certain ancestral standards (set by themselves the Creek) but your ancestor is not on the Dawes Roll, you can still call yourself Creek and participate with them. But you are NOT going to be called Creek, nor will you be subject to any Creek customs or inclusion. That is what makes a nation/community---- unity. Iffen youse ain't included, den youse ain't in dat comm-unity, behbay!
Truth Scathes.
In a minute.....
bb

[kAHANyAH]

BrownBonnet, BornAgain is welcome to post here whatever her heart's desire. But that doesnt mean she is exempt from scrutiny and critique. Come on now, she dishing out so she has to accept that in return. Its healthy debate, nothing evil about that.

As far as yamassee and shumu, according to nuwaubian doctrine they are inter-related. Same peeps , same bloodline.

peace

Brownbonnet said:

and bel---
another thing--- the laws, the rituals, the faith, and the customs of the Yamassee are NOT written on any clay stones and tablets, right? Don't say yes til you research it and find the answer.
But i'll tell you. No. There is NOTHING left of that nation. Just like dwightdiggity york wrote and you nuwaups taught:
The moabite nation was extinguished because of their abominations in the sight of the MOST HIGH, the REDEEMER.
What does that same logic mean when discussing Yamassee? They don't exist. Also, about them stone and clay tablets----
(shouldna got started babe) WHERE is the stone tablet that says for american nigras to worship and make graven cheap images of eggggiptian idols? Where is it? Where is the tablet that is ETCHED IN STONE that says Israelites remnant/tribe of Dan in america must call themselves "Yamassee" Creek indians? Where is the stone tablet ETCHED IN CLAY that tells of the MYTHOLOGY of yamassee indians? You need a directive, bel; to worship like your alleged ancestors, the yamassee. Where is the stone tablet ETCHED IN STONE that tells of moundbuilders? of blacks coming to america in chains and slaveships and reuniting with them-the yamfolks?
where is the tablet ETCHED IN STONE that tells of the yamassee and their relationship with the Christ?

[BalkisII]

BornAgain9 said:

*****Oh OH OH!!! Balkis, you just clicked on a light in me! What do you mean, the so-called plot wasn't concocted in Florida?
I have questioned the legitamacy of the newsletters, and have been told over and over again that the newsletter with all of those published letters are authentic and tell the real story. But why did the newsletters come out talking a "plot" AFTER the arrest of Mr. York? I got no answer.
Were you a nuwaubian at one time? What was it like?

Greetings BornAgain9,

There was no plot concocted in Florida. What you had was a group of young people that grew up together back in Brookly, interested in keeping in touch. Now if at one point, they sat around and talked about things that happenned to them since being in the Tab, that is what normal people do when they gather together.

UNNM of course in order to defend their so called "innocent leader" decided to use anything to concoct plots to paint these youngsters bad, so that their "leader" come out smelling like roses. He/them even went as far as to say that his own son is a pedophile, and that his daughter was a lesbian, and he/them talk about "character assasination???

They slandered me in a letter that made mention of some party where some of the girls had some boys come up, while I was SLEEPING in another area, saying that I condoned such actions by these young people, that he-york ALREADY DONE CORRUPT!!!

I took my shahada back in 1981, and moved into the the tab in Brookly in 86. I truly believed back then that we were on a mission, to right the wrongs, and had a conviction in what I thought to be a good cause at the time. We as a group endured many, many hardships -no heat and hot water in the dead of winter, crowded living conditions, no food at times, and too many things to mention. Despite all the different changes in doctrine, and justification by york for doing so (one of his favorite quote was -"change is constant"), I hung in there, but the straw that broke the camel's back was when my eldeset daughter, after she was kicked out wrote and told me about the molestation, that is when I decided to leave.

[Nubian Ninjah]

york would take a legitimate "black issue) ie; indigenous rights, moorish, islamic, khemtic, religious, ect. and co-op it for the purpose of "de-powering," it,(mkultra/cointelpro) as well as the info GTO provided us in the above post. as a manchurian type individual(early sexual traumatized)who was a willing subject york did what his programmers prescribed for him to do(my take)

[Brownbonnet]

As far as yamassee and shumu, according to nuwaubian doctrine they are inter-related. Same peeps , same bloodline.

hey bel....
it's all good. but the above? let's go to school....
you say, according to nuwaubian doctrine..... but their doctrine STILL isn't factual. They simply can't show nor prove. Now the cCreek stuff is in effect. All they or you or i have to do is call them.....
they send info. so my stuff is ready and able. Now, can the nuwaubics show the connection in facto regarding their roots and the language devilised by yorkmeis? we gotta start somewhere. [blink]TEXT[/blink]

[kAHANyAH]

scientific proof ?, i dunno 'bout that. U'd have to trust the institutions are using the correct genetic markers from supposed people claiming to be the creeks. Problem is argument can be made on both sides. How do we know the ones claiming to be those natives and registered with the gov' are the real McCoys ? We'd have to dig up some corpses dating back a couple of hundred yrs to verify claims. Do you know if there are preserved corpses of this particular tribe dating back 100s of yrs in our possession ?

what is fact ? all depends on your gauging. As I said before what the nuwaubians consider fact are the wedge clays and tablets. Whatever is inscribed on them is factology. Nuwaubians say Anu and the Anunaki existed. Why because its written on those tablets. That is how they consider what is fact from fiction. Jesus Christ is fiction. Why ? because you dont find this name on any stones.

Regarding the language - that is subjective if you really get down to the nitty gritty. I cant knock 'em for comin up wit nuwaupic. It has a syntax. You got your tenses. Its all good. And hey, they are the children of their ancestors. If they came up with it, the inspiration is coming from their gene. And we know ancestors live on in your genes.

Brownbonnet said:

As far as yamassee and shumu, according to nuwaubian doctrine they are inter-related. Same peeps , same bloodline.

Peace.

hey bel....
it's all good. but the above? let's go to school....
you say, according to nuwaubian doctrine..... but their doctrine STILL isn't factual. They simply can't show nor prove. Now the cCreek stuff is in effect. All they or you or i have to do is call them.....
they send info. so my stuff is ready and able. Now, can the nuwaubics show the connection in facto regarding their roots and the language devilised by yorkmeis? we gotta start somewhere. [blink]TEXT[/blink]

/me

[Brownbonnet]

Well, bel---
it seems you present a contradiction. have you read the post by the golden eagle? Where he references the book in the bible called Isaiah?
This is evident that nuwaubians accept the bible. If they have used scriptural references, and these scriptures speak of the Jesus Christ, then HOW is he fiction? Also, if they use the scripture to back up their imaginings, then that means that the Bible scripture_----which you claim that nuwaubians say is fiction because it ain't writ on clay or etched in stone---- is acceptable to them. Rendering your summation false. The nuwaups do accept writings NOT etched in stone or on a clay tablet. Papadoc york used to reference Zechariah Sitchin. Now, his stuff ain't writ or etched in stone or a clay tablet, now is it? Also, yorkdoc uses the Mahdi story and that's not etched in clay, is it? No. It's on papyrus. The same material that you claimed previously is deemed unacceptable to nuwaubians. yet york incorporated this "unacceptable" information on true islam into his own family line---- where he used to claim he is a direct descendant of Muhammad (PBUH). And don't forget that Aaron and Moshe wrote stuff on clay tablets. So if that part of the Biblios is acceptable, then the rest is also. You can't provide any proofs, huh? Well why do you justify york's misleading of these people? you don't KNOW for sure do you? You claim the bible is a fiction. And i say you claim because you are very defensive of these nuwaups. so you must have some acceptance of their doctrine. And bel--- if the nuwaups don't accept the Koran/Quraan or Bible, or Torah, Or mishnah, then why dearbuddy have they suscribed to Al Islam? Why christianity? Why masonry? These doctrines though diverse have appeared on scrolls. Not in etched stone. So can you explain why your friends the nuwaups have worn the white of the Prophets, why yorkdoc re-wrote "El Raatib" and many other Islaamic texts? Why re-write "Al Injiyl"? That's stuff in paper form.
Explain the contradiction.

[kAHANyAH]

they say the bible is plaguerized - that certainly doesnt mean there arent any truths found it in. The only thing is the truth has been white washed to fit the euro-supremacy scheme. For all intents and purpose the bible is false publication. However it can be put in proper context which is something the nuwaubians do.

Jesus isnt real and not found on stone but Jesus is a white washed version of Heru. See the point ?

Brownbonnet said:

Well, bel---
it seems you present a contradiction. have you read the post by the golden eagle? Where he references the book in the bible called Isaiah?
This is evident that nuwaubians accept the bible. If they have used scriptural references, and these scriptures speak of the Jesus Christ, then HOW is he fiction? Also, if they use the scripture to back up their imaginings, then that means that the Bible scripture_----which you claim that nuwaubians say is fiction because it ain't writ on clay or etched in stone---- is acceptable to them. Rendering your summation false. The nuwaups do accept writings NOT etched in stone or on a clay tablet. Papadoc york used to reference Zechariah Sitchin. Now, his stuff ain't writ or etched in stone or a clay tablet, now is it? Also, yorkdoc uses the Mahdi story and that's not etched in clay, is it? No. It's on papyrus. The same material that you claimed previously is deemed unacceptable to nuwaubians. yet york incorporated this "unacceptable" information on true islam into his own family line---- where he used to claim he is a direct descendant of Muhammad (PBUH). And don't forget that Aaron and Moshe wrote stuff on clay tablets. So if that part of the Biblios is acceptable, then the rest is also. You can't provide any proofs, huh? Well why do you justify york's misleading of these people? you don't KNOW for sure do you? You claim the bible is a fiction. And i say you claim because you are very defensive of these nuwaups. so you must have some acceptance of their doctrine. And bel--- if the nuwaups don't accept the Koran/Quraan or Bible, or Torah, Or mishnah, then why dearbuddy have they suscribed to Al Islam? Why christianity? Why masonry? These doctrines though diverse have appeared on scrolls. Not in etched stone. So can you explain why your friends the nuwaups have worn the white of the Prophets, why yorkdoc re-wrote "El Raatib" and many other Islaamic texts? Why re-write "Al Injiyl"? That's stuff in paper form.
Explain the contradiction.

[Brownbonnet]

so bel---
basically what you are saying is tha the Nuwaupians can twist the words of the bible and and add and subtract the holy word and make it fit their own doctrine, right? how are they justified, and who proved to you that the Word of The Most High of our fathers the Israelites is false publication? Plagiarized? Really? Which Bible? Might you be speaking of the New, new international version----published by a bunch of gnostics?
You know what a gnostic is, right?
So, the nuwaubs can use the words and the parables and the lesson and the Divine Light found in the Bible with all the names of the prophets and David, and Solomon, and Ruwth and Esther/Hadassah et al are a fabrication? Why study it then? Why did they get all deep into the practice of what yorkdoc calls true christianity? Where in the world do you find the facts that point to Eurosupremacy schemes for the bible? The Word is the Life, and that was before Euros were even Born!@!!!! so, we, the darks of the ancient world, followed idols and also the Most High.
You don't actually KNOW, do you?

[kAHANyAH]

I didnt say that. The nuwaubians or anyone for that matter can consult universal law written in so-called "sacred scripts" (please bear in mind I am playin devil's advocate here. I havent shared with you my own personal view of the bible).

The thing with the bible is these mathematical principals are laced/veiled with historical inaccuracies. Follow ? If you aren't aware, the bible is a book of universal principals codified in story form. The problem many encounter with the bible r the "stories". They are fabrications [parables] and plaguerism.

An example of plaguerism. El is a canaanite g-d existing before the creation of the state and nation israel. Reading the bible you'd think El was first introduced by the Israelites. Hardly the case. El was the father of Baal; g-d of thunder and storms in canaan culture. I mean its evidenced in the bible writs the children of israel formulated their g-d concept from the goym [nations] they sojourned in.

Oh, when I say I bible I am referring to the penteteuch/torah and tenach ascribed to Moshe and the OT prophets. In other words, the hebrew text.

Brownbonnet said:

so bel---
basically what you are saying is tha the Nuwaupians can twist the words of the bible and and add and subtract the holy word and make it fit their own doctrine, right? how are they justified, and who proved to you that the Word of The Most High of our fathers the Israelites is false publication? Plagiarized? Really? Which Bible? Might you be speaking of the New, new international version----published by a bunch of gnostics?
You know what a gnostic is, right?
So, the nuwaubs can use the words and the parables and the lesson and the Divine Light found in the Bible with all the names of the prophets and David, and Solomon, and Ruwth and Esther/Hadassah et al are a fabrication? Why study it then? Why did they get all deep into the practice of what yorkdoc calls true christianity? Where in the world do you find the facts that point to Eurosupremacy schemes for the bible? The Word is the Life, and that was before Euros were even Born!@!!!! so, we, the darks of the ancient world, followed idols and also the Most High.
You don't actually KNOW, do you?

[Brownbonnet]

yeah, bel.
duh. I know all of that, and you are the one who claims the yorkyfolk are right. You play the devil's advocate, huh? Well let's break down a contradiction you wrote then.....
you claim that the bible is plagiarized and basically a bunch of made up stories. Okay, but is not the word 'devil" in the bible? Who is the devil to you, and why use that word, if you reject the Bible? you haven't proved that the bible is plagiarized. From what? not the egyptians. Read Isaiah 30. See what El did to the egyptians? So, which story of Christ is true? There is no other divine scripture.
You have no proof of historical inaccuracies. What are they, and where did you learn them? You didn't get it from a book, did you? Maybe you got it from a clay tablet, ETCHED IN STONE. Now, bel---- you claimed that you didn't share your beliefs about the bible with me. Yes, you did. You said that the Bible is plagiarized. That infers that you have more knowledge than the old masters and you can authorize the dismissal of one holy script. So, do you say the koran is true? Wrong. It's last not first. Get the math right, bel.
Again who told you of the plagiarisms?

[kAHANyAH]

devil = adversary. Thats the generic definition i will use for edification's sake. because I say the bible is plagiarized that doesnt preclude me from using the term "devil". Why am I playing Devil's advocate ? because I can see pros and cons on both sides. You can consider me impartial in my judgment. I dont have anything to defend or anything at stake. Why did I say the bible is plagiarized ? I answered that already. I gave the example of "El" the canaan g-d. Do you know who El is ? Look -> israe'EL, EL-ohim. Now did the jews ever give "intellectual" credit to Canaan ? I dont think so.

Historical inaccuracies - Jonah and the big whale. Thats one. The Big Whale is DAGON THE FISH G-D. Jonah was never swallowed up by a whale for 3 days. Its a parable that goes into the rite of Dagon G-d of the philistim. The story of Jonah is also a forrunner to Jesus and his ministry unto the gentiles (thru paul) and the belly of the earth ordeal and the whole Piscean [fish] age; We can tackle that another time.

I hope you understand why its plagiarized. I mean there are numerous examples - creation epic, 10 commandments, etc...

Brownbonnet said:

yeah, bel.
duh. I know all of that, and you are the one who claims the yorkyfolk are right. You play the devil's advocate, huh? Well let's break down a contradiction you wrote then.....
you claim that the bible is plagiarized and basically a bunch of made up stories. Okay, but is not the word 'devil" in the bible? Who is the devil to you, and why use that word, if you reject the Bible? you haven't proved that the bible is plagiarized. From what? not the egyptians. Read Isaiah 30. See what El did to the egyptians? So, which story of Christ is true? There is no other divine scripture.
You have no proof of historical inaccuracies. What are they, and where did you learn them? You didn't get it from a book, did you? Maybe you got it from a clay tablet, ETCHED IN STONE. Now, bel---- you claimed that you didn't share your beliefs about the bible with me. Yes, you did. You said that the Bible is plagiarized. That infers that you have more knowledge than the old masters and you can authorize the dismissal of one holy script. So, do you say the koran is true? Wrong. It's last not first. Get the math right, bel.
Again who told you of the plagiarisms?

[BornAgain9]

devil = adversary. Thats the generic definition i will use for edification's sake. because I say the bible is plagiarized that doesnt preclude me from using the term "devil". Why am I playing Devil's advocate ? because I can see pros and cons on both sides. You can consider me impartial in my judgment. I dont have anything to defend or anything at stake. Why did I say the bible is plagiarized ? I answered that already. I gave the example of "El" the canaan g-d. Do you know who El is ? Look -> israe'EL, EL-ohim. Now did the jews ever give "intellectual" credit to Canaan ? I dont think so.

Hi, all. It's me, Born.
I read that post, bel, and you are incorrect in your definition of devil. How about "doer of evil, the opposite of live?" Just because I may be or Bonnet may be your adversary does not make neither of us "doers of evil". Am I correct? I know so. So if I am a necromancer and you are a Muslim out to save my soul, then I would label you as my adversary. You are working against what I am working, so we are in "adversity", right? The word doesn't mean something negative; it can be applied to a negative circumstance or a positive one.
And no, you did not answer already. You gave Bonnet a worn out misused explanation..... the whale is a joke! Listen BelzBug and try this hat on: In the nuwaubian literature, they have claimed that the Israelites (whose story is chronicled in the Bible and who did exist APART from the Egyptians) were led across the desert (the desert is the Negev) and were pursued by PHAROAH'S army. So the Egyptians are portrayed as savages or brutes and idolaters. I reread that book Isaiah 30 that Bonnet suggested. BelZBug, did you read it? You really should have read it that way you can say something about it. Otherwise, you don't know what you are talking about.
You could have read it in Greek, if you wanted. I see a group of persons who have rifled through the Holy Bible and picked and chose what they "like" about the stories, and discard the other as plagiarism. You cannot and have not proved in the least how the Bible is a plagiary. Because you can't. No one can.
You might have seen a bad compilation.
There are bad bibles out there. Why give Devil any assistance in being his advocate? What makes you think, BelZBug, that he needs your help? He hates you. He said he did from the first breath of man! Read the Holy Scripture, because Mr. York taught the peeople that, and he got it out of the Bible, sir!
And as for the jews giving intellectual credit to canaan, you must realize that the jewish people were NOT canaanites. So they gave the canaanites nothing that was not due them. And if the above is the best that you can do to prove the plagiary, then perhaps, Miss Bonnet, we should just move on. What is our next, fresh concern?

[kAHANyAH]

actually I am wrong. Satan = Adversary. Devil = slanderer. Its obvious your mind is set so i will leave it in peace at this stage of the debate.