John Bilal: This is uh a meeting of uh the Awake Study Group, which is a offshoot, a historical offshoot of the Black History Club here at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center . And uh we're meeting today uh to discuss um the Million Man March that occurred on the 16th of October, on Monday. And uh you wrote an article, Mr. Marannis, in the Washington Post on Tuesday, um and the uh name of the article was "A Clear Day: A Cloud of Contradiction". And um, um, first of all, I'd like you to know that uh typically our meetings are uh, taped and sometimes transcripts are made of those meetings. Um, I didn't make you aware of that, but I want to make you aware of that now.

David Marannis: That's fine with me.

John Bilal: Okay. Um there's a selection of um about fifteen people, twelve to fifteen people here now and um we just wanted to plunge in to the talk. Um, on the line with you is Mr. Neely Fuller. Um, Mr. Fuller is the author of a book entitled United Independent Compensatory Code System Concept and it's a textbook/workbook for victims of racism, or victims of white supremacy. Um, and uh we wanted to start the discussion by asking directly, uh asking you to speak to some of the things that you wrote in your article. Everyone here has a copy of the article, and um, and um.

David Marannis: Do you have a copy of the article I wrote the day before?

John Bilal: Oh, no I don't.

David Marannis: Are you familiar with that story?

John Bilal: No we're not. Um, maybe you can make that familiar.

David Marannis: It was a story on the front page of the Washington Post about Bobby and James Watkins of Chicago who drove out from Chicago to come to the march, expressing the reasons that they came and their thoughts about uh black men in America and the march and their feelings about minister Farrakhan and um so on. Um, it's a very positive article about the two men, one of whom was a child abuse investigator in Chicago and the other one works for the Chicago Public Schools. And what I was trying to do in that story is show that how um much of the focus on Farrakhan was needless because in fact when you have men coming somewhere it's for a lot of different reasons that have nothing to do with Louis Farrakhan. (pause) Hello.

John Bilal: Yes.

David Marannis: Hello. Can you hear me?

John Bilal: Yes, we can hear you. You asked did we have a copy of the uh article from the previous day, which you just described? What do you think was the significance of that article relative to the article on the following day?

David Marannis: Uh, uh, I just did. Did you hear me? I guess you can't hear me?

Bill Reaves: No, I heard you but you asked that article...

David Marannis: The article, uh, hello, can you hear me?

John Bilal: Yeah, we can hear you.

David Marannis: Okay. The article on Monday was on the front page of the Washington Post. It was about Fargo, Bobby, and James Watkins who drove from Chicago to Washington to attend the March. And what I was doing in that story was reflecting the notion that um this March is not really about Louis Farrakhan, but about Black men in America coming together to express um their strong feelings about a lot of different issues, and um, I was trying to personalize the story in that first article through these two men from Chicago.

Bill Reaves: Excuse me one second. Is Mr. Fuller on the line? Mr. Fuller?

Neely Fuller: Hello.

Bill Reaves: Um, we have a question here. Someone wanted to know, um, could each of you discuss your uh opinions on the significance of the March.

Neely Fuller: My opinions on the significance of the March?

Bill Reaves: Yes, you can go first, Mr. Fuller.

Neely Fuller: My opinions on the significance of the March is that there is a race problem that hasn't been solved. That's what this is all about. That's why it was principally, I imagine, uh called a Million Man March, but they've said a million black men , so therefore we're talking about a race problem of some sort or the results of a race problem. And of course, when you say race problem, you're talking about the system of white supremacy. That IS the race problem according to the Kerner Commission Report and every other subsequent report that has been made since the advent of the Kerner Commission Report. So when you say race problem you're really talking about conflict between white and non-white people and/or people who are classified as black. And that's basically IT, regardless of uh how it veiled in any other terms, social, economic, historical, etc., you're talking about an unsolved race problem. Most scholars who sit down and talk for hours on end, days on end, years on end, finally get up from the table and say we've got a race problem. We have a conflict between black people and white people that we have not come up with any type of solution, nowhere close to it. The best of brains have not come up with any type of solution. And so, the uh, the little petty attempt at making a solution has come nowhere close to even being a good start. That's what this March is really all about, fundamentally.

Bill Reaves: Mr. Marranis.

David Marannis: Um, I agree completely with Mr. Fuller that there's this serious race problem in America. Um, I'm not sure that that was the meaning of this March. I think it was one of many meanings of the March. It was called as a Day of Atonement and Reconciliation for Black men , um and I think that most of the, ..., I spent a lot of time at the March and the day before interviewing um, men who had come to Washington for the March. Um, they didn't put it in the direct, um, terms as Dr. Fuller did. They said they were coming there to express love and affirmation for each other, and uh, a hope to um, improve their lives and the lives of other people in the country, by joint action, an expression of their, their, their uh, their new commitment to working together.

Neely Fuller: For working together in order to achieve what?

David Marannis: In order to achieve, uh , not just resolving the race problem in America (quote, unquote), but also um, improving the economic and social status of black people in the country, and overcoming a lot of, you know, the violence and drug abuse in the inner city.

Neely Fuller: Well, to the best of my knowledge, every report I have ever read that the violence and drug abuse, etc., etc., etc., is all a result of the system of racism. Now, even the gentleman didn't talk about that, but uh many people do not understand what racism is. They only understand what they see right in front of them, but they do not make a connection between what's happening in front of them each and every day, in every area of activity: economics, education, entertainment, labor , law, politics, religion, sex, war; all comes from one thing. All of this conflict, all of these problems come from one thing as pointed out by the October Kerner's Commission Report in the 1960's; white racism. That's the bedrock. You wouldn't have any of it, any of it, any of it, any of it, if you didn't have a system of white supremacy in place.

David Marannis: I think the system of racism in America would never deny that, and I think it's unfortunate,...

Neely Fuller: Well, it's not the system,...

David Marannis: But, I don't think that was the point of the march nor was it certainly the point of Louis Farrakhan's speech or any of the other speeches there.

Neely Fuller: Um, Mr. Farrakhan would not even exist if there was no such thing as white supremacy, as a minister for the Nation of Islam addressing race problems.

David Marannis: Yeah, you're probably right.

Neely Fuller: Okay, and that, that is not, uh,... it's another thing that's attached to discussions about this that should be dropped, because the language is all contaminated. The point is, when people talk race, they usually add, "in this country", those three words, which should be dropped.

David Marannis: Because,...

Neely Fuller: And they also add , uh, and/or they add, "in America".

David Marannis: And why should those words be dropped?

Neely Fuller: They should be dropped exclusively , I mean, at all times, in any conversation and any talk because when you talk about the race problem, you're talking about a world problem. Always when you say that you're talking about the system of white supremacy, you're talking about an entire world problem, twenty-four hours a day, nonstop.

David Marannis: No, I think,...Well, I mean, that's an interesting argument I disagree with. I think that, that uh race is a problem around the world, but it's different in a lot of different places, and , ... (unintelligible) is peculiar because it's the largest country that had the largest and longest system of slavery of any place in the world.

Neely Fuller: Where is that?

David Marannis: United States.

Neely Fuller: Oh no, we're not talking about slavery as such, we're talking about people mistreating people on the basis of color, and that's worldwide.

David Marannis: The whole basis and genesis for a United States is slavery, and that, that, affects everything in every,... you know, both historically and today in terms of how race is dealt with in this country.

Neely Fuller: Well, that's, ... people like to speak of it in that context, then it can be easily compartmentalized, but the black who were "made slaves" came from a place called African. And that place has been completely, from top to bottom, subjugated by the white supremacists, directly and indirectly, according to all historical accounts.

David Marannis: I'm not um, I'm not on the line to argue with you about history. I mean, the blacks in Africa were also subjugated by the Muslims for hundreds of years.

Neely Fuller: Well, those are tribal conflicts which still go on. Uh, religious and tribal conflicts, which you still have today.

David Marannis: You're trying to simplify it too much.

Neely Fuller: Hello. You said that that's what?

David Marannis: Uh, I'm just making a point. I think you're simplifying things too much.

Neely Fuller: Ummm, well. It's either true or false. Now see the position that uh, from what I call counter-racist logic is that, you have race problem worldwide.

David Marannis: Uh huh.

Neely Fuller: And if you want to specify what causes it, it is a system of white supremacy, that is global, global, not local, global, twenty four hours a day in all areas of activity; covers everything and everybody.

David Marannis: So how do you propose to get rid of it?

Neely Fuller: First of all, you have to recognize that it does exist. Now if there is no agreement that such a system does actually exist in all nine areas of activity, twenty four hours a day, everywhere, affecting everyone, then there's no way to get rid of it, if that isn't recognized. Just like you go into a doctor's office. If the doctor's can't agree that cancer is the problem in the patient, then there's no way to cure the cancer.

John Bilal: Um, Mr. Marranis. Did you read or listen to the president's speech at Texas University?

David Marannis: Uh, yes I did. I watched it on television.

John Bilal: Okay, in that article or in that speech, he made a statement that white racism may be black people's burden, but it's white people's problem: we must clean house. And it sounds as though he's speaking directly to white people. Um, can you make any correlation between the President's apparent assessment that, uh, what he calls white racism, what I would call white supremacy, actually exists and uh , is prevalent in the society we live in?

David Marannis: Well, I think that uh, I agree entirely with President Clinton on that issue, and I think it's one that, that he has dealt with uh, historically from the time he got into politics. Um, he came out of Arkansas State that was totally segregated, um, when he was a young man and from his earliest times whenever you think of him ideologically and other respects he's been very strong on the issues of trying to overcome racism in the United States. So I think that's been a steady theme of his for the last thirty years.

John Bilal: Do you think the commitment, that uh, the committeemen that's being talked about now in the House and Senate concerning committing U. S. troops to Bosnia; do you think that has any relationship to uh white supremacy?

David Marannis: I don't see it, no.

John Bilal: Mr. Fuller, would you speak to that?

Neely Fuller: What was the question, specifically?

John Bilal: The question is, whether the Bosnia conflict has anything whatever to do with white supremacy on a global scale?

Neely Fuller: Everything that a, to the extent that a white supremacist has something to do with it, yes, because white supremacists don't do anything unless it's going to help the system of white supremacy. That's just the nature of the way that they have been raised and taught and to think right from birth.

David Marannis: Well, do you think that everything that the United States does has a white supremacist motivation?
... President Clinton's decision to overthrow the uh, military __________ in the 80's. That was not a white supremacist action.

Neely Fuller: I, I, didn't say anything about the United States. See the language has to be carefully tailored. I would never make a charge of the United States being racist. I would never under any circumstances, according to counter-racist logic, make a charge against President Clinton as being a racist. I'm only saying that the system of white supremacy, that means white people who believe in white supremacy, are the smartest and most powerful people on this planet. And they don't belong to countries, countries belong to them. They function all over the place. They go anywhere that they please, anytime that they please, and do whatever they please, with no opposition from anybody, and this is what makes them white supremacists. And their ideology is white supremacy, not Americanism, not the United States, not communism, not capitalism, not Judaism, not Christianity. The religion and the politics of a white supremacists is white supremacy.

David Marannis: Well, I've encountered some white supremacists in my report. I wrote extensively about David Duke in Louisiana, and I've written some about the militia movement and white supremacists, but I don't think that in either case you can say that those people are controlling the world.

Neely Fuller: Uh, these are the people who other white people have announced are white supremacists, The most sophisticated of white supremacists do not carry that label hardly ever. They are people who, one will pass on the street everyday, and if you ask them if they have ever said the word nigger, they probably have not, because they don't use that kind of language when they are super sophisticated. The smartest of the white supremacists do not appear to be white supremacists, but they function as white supremacists worldwide.

David Marannis: Mr. Fuller, do you know who the leaders of this movement are?

Neely Fuller: They are individual white supremacists that practice it everyday.

David Marannis: I don't know. It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, which I'm not willing to accept. I believe entirely in the existence of structural racism, in the world and in the United States, but I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

Neely Fuller: Okay, then, I have a question. How is there a structural racist system without the racists?

David Marannis: Well, because the United States was built on racism, I mean, there was, it was built on slavery.

Neely Fuller: Wait a minute, whoa. What I'd like to interject right now,....

David Marannis: Yeah.

Neely Fuller: You, you, want to be quoted as saying that?

David Marannis: I don't think that anyone can deny that when the United States was founded there was a racist system intact. Absolutely, I'd be quoted on that. I mean that's a historical fact that's undeniable. And that every person in the country would have to acknowledge. I'd be quoted on that. I mean if you have some people treated as slaves, how can you not say that's a racist system?

Neely Fuller: Is there a racist system in place now?

David Marannis: I think there's , you know there's, ....

Neely Fuller: There either is or there isn't.

David Marannis: Well, again, I disagree with the whole notion that you're trying to simplify things. I mean there's some structural racism in place, but I think that there are a lot of efforts being made to overcome it, and that's what should be emphasized.

Neely Fuller: Well,...

David Marannis: I don't think that there are people who have power in the United States, who are, w ho are, trying to repress Black people right now. I think that it's various ways that there is racism. There's certainly racism in some police departments in the United States. Um, there are, you know there's still um, it's still harder for Blacks to succeed in many places, uh, but I don't think that that's a result of a white supremacist conspiracy.

Neely Fuller: Uh, do you say that white supremacy exists as a system worldwide?

David Marannis: No.

Neely Fuller: That is really the question.

David Marannis: No. I don't buy into that, no, no.

Neely Fuller: Alright, then, then, we have a fundamental disagreement because that is the premise in which I think at all times.

David Marannis: Well, I, I, I think that there is racism worldwide, I don't believe there's a white supremacist system purposely controlling things worldwide. I think that you could look historically at Europe's colonizing of Africa and other places and say that that was a white supremacist system, I would agree with that. I don't think that's in place right now.

Neely Fuller: What system is in place right now?

David Marannis: Well, it's much more diverse than that. I mean you've got uh ....

Neely Fuller: What is the most powerful of these diverse systems?

David Marannis: I'm sorry?

Neely Fuller: What is the most powerful, what name would you give to the most powerful of the systems that are now at work on this planet?

David Marannis: Well , I would uh, (pause) democracy and capitalism, I would say probably and sometimes uh,...

Neely Fuller: What is meant by democracy?

David Marannis: Democracy is where the people rule. And in the United States now, I mean everyone has a vote. There is a, you know, I mean there's different levels of democracy, economic democracy is what people are fighting for now. That's, what I think your whole system of white supremacy is too simplistic.

Neely Fuller: It's too simplistic.

David Marannis: Yes.

Neely Fuller: In other words, it's not true?

David Marannis: Uh, even to say it's not true is to fall into your trap of making everything yes or no.

Neely Fuller: Well, things are either true or they are false. This is what the confusion has come about in the discussion of racism.

David Marannis: No, Your attempt to make everything either true or false, or yes or no, is the whole simplified system that creates wars and tensions in the world. I mean things are not that clear, there are a lot of different um, uh, elements and nuances to everything, and it's not just the white supremacist system that's responsible for everything that's going wrong in the world, and to say that is not to disavow that there is racism here and everywhere. That's my feeling.

Bill Reaves: Mr. Marranis. You said that the United States was founded on racism?

David Marannis: Well, it was founded with a racist system intact. Absolutely, because when it was founded, there were slaves.

Bill Reaves: So consequently, so you're saying prior to the United States being founded, there was a system intact that um,...

David Marannis: That was racist.

Bill Reaves: There were racists?

David Marannis: That was racist. The system was inherently racist. Any system that has slavery and that treats some people not as human beings is inherently racist.

Bill Reaves: Okay, and I think the confusion here is a very practical one. Uh, the assumption that a system exists um, we all here, many of us here work with technical things, and the connotation there when you say system is that there could be something mechanical working. When you talk about racism, the system is built by and perpetuated by people. It can't exist by itself.

David Marannis: Oh, I agree with that, completely.

Bill Reaves: So consequently, if a racist system exists, that means there are people who are racists.

David Marannis: Yep, I agree.

Bill Reaves: So therefore, these people practice a form of racism. Now, the question is prior to the United States even becoming a country, and the people forming themselves into what is commonly called a nation, these people were practicing racism.

David Marannis: Absolutely.

Bill Reaves: Exactly, and I guess that what Mr. Fuller is saying is that, there were people practicing racism in what we call the United States. There were people practicing racism in other parts of what we call the world or the universe, and if people continue to do this beyond and across these lines that we call countries, so you can't just define it to a country. There is racism in what we call Africa now, going on at all times, and you can't just define it to ‘good old boys driving around in a Volkswagen.

David Marannis: I think that all of those points are excellent and I think that, that, that, to say that you can't ever say racism in America is foolish, because America does have it's own peculiar um, problems to deal with. And plus the whole point of the MMM was to deal with them in America. It wasn't a world MMM, it was one for people in the United States.

Neely Fuller: I have a question. Hello.

John Bilal: Go ahead Mr. Fuller.

Neely Fuller: Can an American be a racist?

David Marannis: Of course.

Neely Fuller: Wouldn't that be a contradiction?

David Marannis: Why?

Neely Fuller: Because if you're a white supremacist, how can you be an American?

David Marannis: Well, an American is just somebody who lives in the United States. I don't think Americans should be racists or white supremacists.

Neely Fuller: No, no, we're not talking about should be. We're talking about qualification.

David Marannis: I know we're not. So what's the point of your , uh, uh....

Neely Fuller: I mean a person disqualifies him or herself by being a white supremacist as being a member of any country, really. I mean if you look at it objectively, even from a juris prudence standpoint, from the standpoint of legal systems.

David Marannis: Well, no, I might agree with you in terms of spiritually, but not objectively. In other words, I don't racism, I wish there were no racists in America, but racists exists and they have as much right to exist legally as anyone else.

Neely Fuller: In other words, a person who calls him or herself an American can practice white supremacy and still be considered an American?

David Marannis: Well, I mean, you answer the question. If someone's walking down the street saying they're a white supremacist, are they immediately um executed or thrown in jail?

Neely Fuller: No, but what I'm saying is that person is denouncing Americanism. America means ...

David Marannis: Not denouncing an Americanism, you have to be careful. Americanism is a phrase historically that,...

Neely Fuller: That means what?

David Marannis: That Americanism historically has been a phrase to imply someone who is a total nativist, and who doesn't like the rest of the world, um, so I wouldn't use that phrase.

Neely Fuller: What about the United States?

David Marannis: Well, I mean an American or United States, but Americanism is a very specific phrase, um...

Neely Fuller: What is the definition of an American?

David Marannis: The definition of an American,... there is no official definition , it's someone...

Neely Fuller: There is no official definition of an American?

David Marannis: No. Because America loosely is usually applied just to the United States, but in fact, you know, all of North and South America is America, so anyone in this whole hemisphere is an American in that sense.

Neely Fuller: Anyone.

David Marannis: Yes.

Neely Fuller: The whole hemisphere. What exactly does that mean in a functional sense?

David Marannis: I don't know what you mean.

Neely Fuller: I mean, how do you actually apply it so that you can tell an American from someone else?

David Marannis: Well, I don't worry about that.

Neely Fuller: No, well it's just a matter of, you know, not whether I say or you say, it means, what really IS an Ameri - can?

John Bilal: Uh, Mr. Fuller, um you have a um idea of what a compensatory definition of what an American is?
Can you share that with us?

Neely Fuller: An American according to counter-racist logic would have to be a person who doesn't mistreat anyone, doesn't allow anyone to be mistreated, helps the person most who needs helps the most and who is not a white supremacist.

John Bilal: Mr. Fuller, why is that?

Neely Fuller: Because in order to eliminate white supremacy and produce justice, that's what an American would have to be.

John Bilal: But, but, what, I mean, is that the only reason, uh, I mean, you have Africans, you have Asians, you have other Japanese and other things, I mean,..

Neely Fuller: Say that again.

John Bilal: You say that um, the reason an American should be defined as you just defined it is to end white supremacy, um, is there any other functional reason for that?

Neely Fuller: To produce justice, to replace injustice. It's no point in being an American, if you're not about actually practicing justice. If you're not practicing justice, you can't be an American, it's impossible.

John Bilal: Mr. Marannis? Mr. Marannis?

Neely Fuller: Can you be an Asian or an African, by definition?

David Marannis: I think we're just arguing over uh, um, semantics. I mean I ....

Neely Fuller: Semantics are everything when it comes to fighting racism since it is the white supremacists who use semantics more than anything to deceive people.

David Marannis: But, Mr. Fuller, let me say this. I agree with you on all,... the four definitions you had for an American, I would say, that's what Americans should be. Fine. I agree with that completely.

Neely Fuller: Well, see, we're not talking about what SHOULD be. Hello... say that again, sir?

David Marannis: So then what do you do with everyone else who doesn't meet those, those four criteria, they're not Americans, so you can say they're not Americans, but what does that do practically to deal with them?

Neely Fuller: What does that do practically to deal with who?

David Marannis: With those people who live in this country who don't meet your definition of an American.

Neely Fuller: But see you said yourself that Americanism is a spirituality, so therefore, when you apply that spirituality to a practical sense, you're really talking about a world philosophy. And that same world philosophy could be used not only to apply to Americanism, it could also be used and should be used to apply to Africanism and Asianism which means that they all have the same basic definition if they are to serve a constructive purpose on this planet at all.

John Bilal: Mr. Marannis?

David Marannis: Uh, you know, I, I use a,... it's an interesting philosophy, I agree with the heart of it, but not with, uh, you know, with uh,...

Neely Fuller: What, with the mechanics?

David Marannis: The mechanics, yeah.

Neely Fuller: Why would you agree with the philosophy but not with the mechanics?

David Marannis: Because I agree that everybody should look at each other without racism, period. Um, but I don't see where your, I mean, that's it, that's what I say. And I think the, that people should try to overcome racism wherever they see it. I think they have to work on it both on a personal level and in an institutional level.

Neely Fuller: Okay, how would they do this on a personal and an institutional level in a functional sense, if they do not do it through, first of all, the correct language that addresses the problem.

David Marannis: Uh, I don't follow you entirely.

Neely Fuller: In other words, the language has to be changed. In other words, the whole definition of the way we see America, Africa, Asia, each and every individual, black, brown, red, yellow, white; all of these classifications, the terms like blacks and Jews;

David Marannis: So you would get rid of those terms?

Neely Fuller: ... terms that should never be used under any circumstances because it doesn't make sense.

David Marannis: Uh uh.

Neely Fuller: See, this is a very popular term, blacks and Jews. And usually this term is associated a lot with uh, the controversy surrounding Minister Farrakhan which is what this conversation started out about. Anytime you use the term, blacks and Jews, you are using a nonsense term. Everybody on the staff of every paper, every scholar in school should understand this, but you have people at Harvard, Oxford, Yale, who will use that term, blacks and Jews, and if you look at term, for about 2 seconds, it should come to a scientific mind that it's impossible to make any sense out of those three words using that combination.

David Marannis: Because?

Neely Fuller: It's totally impossible.

David Marannis: Because?

Neely Fuller: It's like saying blacks and bus riders.

David Marannis: (laughing)

Neely Fuller: Now, see what kind of sense that makes. Stop and think about it for about 2 minutes, or maybe 15 minutes, or maybe 15 years. If you stare at it long enough you'd see the error.

David Marannis: Well, um, I think you can, I mean I, I, actually have never used that phrase, but I think you can,....

Neely Fuller: You've never used the term blacks and Jews?

David Marannis: Not in print, no I haven't. Um...

Neely Fuller: If you will study it with your staff, you will find out that through the year, people,.....(unintelligible), indirect term,... a term.....

David Marannis: ....*?#@#$, that it's used frequently, but I think you can apply your argument as much to uh Farrakhan who, who talks about blacks and Jews in his speeches as you can to, to, whites who write about it.

Neely Fuller: Well, let's think in this vain. We're talking about the use of language which is a tool that the white supremacists are masters at. This is why they can cause confusion. So doesn't it make more sense to say Moslems and Jews, or Christians and Hindus, or Buddhists and Confuscionists, or Confuscionists and Jews, rather than to say blacks and Jews which absolutely makes no sense at.

David Marannis: Well, you have to understand that these things come out of a context. They're not just made up out of thin air. The origin of the context of blacks and Jews, there are two origins, I, I, think. One is that during the early days of the civil rights movement, there were a lot of Jewish people who were actively supporting the black civil rights movement.

Neely Fuller: Alright, hold that thought,...

David Marannis: Now the second part of it is that also historically uh, there have been more,.. blacks have identified Jewish people as merchants inside um the inner cities, and so, I mean blacks have spoken disparagingly about Jewish merchants and then Farrakhan has done that, um and so that's where those two groups become linked, whereas obviously one is a religion and one is a race or at least, uh , you know that's,...

Neely Fuller: Uh, well, would you hold that point? Because now I'm going put another combination of words on the board. You just said blacks and Jews. Now I'm going to put right under that, blacks and Christians. Now stare at that and see how much sense it makes.

David Marannis: No, I, that's, you're right.

Neely Fuller: It's no way for any of those terms to make sense in anybody whose been to any kind of school for 30 seconds. But yet you find the greatest scholars using these terms. And I'm claiming that it's a white supremacists trick.

David Marannis: Well, that's interesting.

Bill Reaves: Well, the question that this discussion begs, it that you said that there were people in the sixties who marched; you said that they were Jews, that in the sixties that marched Mr. Marannis?

David Marannis: Well, what I was saying is that during that era, Jewish people are apart of the coalition for civil rights in America, and were traditionally very strong supporters if black civil rights in the sixties.

Bill Reaves: Okay, so you're talking about white people ?

David Marannis: Am I talking about white Jews? Well, there are some black Jewish people, not very many.

Neely Fuller: Okay, well then, where does that reconcile the term blacks and Jews if there are some black people who are Jews?

David Marannis: Well, I said that there aren't very many, so you don't think of it in that sense.

Bill Reaves: So, in essence, you're speaking of white people, correct?

David Marannis: I am speaking of white people, but Jewish people tend to identify, not all by any means, that there is a Jewish community that identifies itself as Jewish.

Neely Fuller: Is there a Christian community that identifies itself as Christian?

David Marannis: Well, there are different sectors of the Christian community that identifies themselves as Christian.

Neely Fuller: What is meant by white church?

David Marannis: I have no idea.

Neely Fuller: What is meant by a black church?

David Marannis: Well, historically a black church grew up because they weren't allowed, you know, because of segregation.

Bill Reaves: So you mean they weren't allowed to go to white churches?

Neely Fuller: Are the white churches and the black churches Christian churches?

David Marannis: Are they both Christian churches?

Neely Fuller: Yes.

David Marannis: (laughter) Well, sure.

Neely Fuller: Well how can you have a black church that is Christian and a white church that is Christian when Christian means altogether?

David Marannis: Well, that's a good question. I mean that's at the root of the racist paradox in the world. I agree completely with that, I mean...

Neely Fuller: No we've come full circle to where we started out. See, I said that the language has to be changed because the white supremacists have tailored all language in such a way as to maximize confusion, in religion, politics,... hello..

David Marannis: What phrase would you use instead of black church? Or ,..(unintelligible) Episcopal church, would you get rid of that name?

Neely Fuller: Well, you certainly couldn't call it a black church as such and call it a Christian church at the same time because that would be contradictory. A Christian church is a Christian church, period.

David Marannis: That's true of Moslems too then so why use the phrase black Moslem?

Neely Fuller: Same, same thing. Same thing, I don't know. I don't who coined the term black Moslem. It was probably a white supremacist.

David Marannis: I don't think so.

Neely Fuller: First time I've heard it, uh, and I have talked to people who've said that they were Moslems; they said they've never heard the term black Moslem until they saw it in a paper.

David Marannis: Well, it was a,... no, I mean Elijah Mohammed founded the black Moslems. He wasn't a white supremacist.

Neely Fuller: I didn't say that he was. I said that I talked to a person back in the 1960's about the origin of the term black Moslem and he said he didn't know. And he said he was a Moslem, but he didn't know anything about any black Moslem other than that he was black and that he believed in the religion of Islam. Same way that when you talk to a black person says he or she is a Christian; the average black person who says that he or she is a Christian, does not say that he or she is a black Christian. So that is the term that I have probable cause to believe that terms both black Christian, black Moslem, black Jews, were coined by white supremacists because that would be the only purpose for that being done.

John Bilal: Um Mr. Marannis? I have a question from someone here.

David Marannis: Sure.

John Bilal: And um the person asked the question, do you consider the fact that the media did not report that whites and other minorities attended the March, do you consider that, that the media did not report that, that that is divisive?

David Marannis: Um, well let me say first of all that, that um, in the Washington post coverage there were a few little stories about white people who were there. So, but I mean it was an overwhelmingly, the event was overwhelmingly um, of black men, there were quite a few women that I saw there, too. Uh, I don't think that that was an attempt to be divisive in any way. To report it as an overwhelmingly, an event that attracted over 1 million black men. It was called the Million Man March. Um, it was called for black men, it wasn't called for white men or black women or for white women. Now the media was reporting what was taking place, I don't think that was an effort to be divisive. And nor do I think that people viewed the march as a divisive act. I certainly didn't. I didn't consider it a separatist act. I considered it an affirmation for the people who went. Um, and almost all the people that I talked to said they weren't there to express any separatist instincts or feelings but just to express themselves. I think there's a difference.

Neely Fuller: Uh, do you think that most white people believe in, what you would call, separatist instinct? And what exactly does that mean?

David Marannis: Well,...

Neely Fuller: I notice most white people marry most people. What does that mean?

David Marannis: I think there are different levels of separation.

Neely Fuller: Different levels of separation.

David Marannis: Sure. Absolutely.

Neely Fuller: What's the significance of that?

David Marannis: Well, it's just that the significance of it is um, probably just in terms of time.

Neely Fuller: Well, okay you had a black Million Man's March down there. Now a lot of people said that that was uh separatist in nature and that Louis Farrakhan is definitely a separatist.

David Marannis: I think Louis Farrakhan is a separatist. I don't think the march was. I think you have to distinguish the march from Louis Farrakhan.

Neely Fuller: Alright, so now we get back....

David Marannis: I think Louis Farrakhan is a separatist because he's called for a separate state within the United States for black people; that's a separatist call.

Neely Fuller: Alright, now. Neighborhood by neighborhood would you say that many white people believe in "separatist instincts", quote unquote, whatever that means?

David Marannis: Well, (laughter). I think that there's a lot of racism in America and that uh housing probably the largest defector um example of that. Yes, I do. I don't like it. I thinks it's true.

Neely Fuller: Well, now that gets almost on the edge of charging many, many, many, many, white people, not just Louis Farrakhan with being separatists? Or is that true or false? Whatever separatist means, because I don't believe that white supremacists believe in separatism.

David Marannis: What do you think they believe in?

Neely Fuller: They believe in domination. That's a different thing.

David Marannis: Uh huh.

Neely Fuller: Directly and indirectly. Sometimes they do it by remote control. Most of the time in the modern era, they do it by remote control. Like the white supremacists completely dominate what they call Africa, completely. There's no such thing as an independent state in Africa. It's impossible. Not under the system of white supremacy.

HM: Mr. Fuller.

Neely Fuller: Yes sir.

HM: Throughout the uh, the March, when they organized the March; constantly through the media you hear terms like ‘separate the message from the messenger' in reference to Farrakhan, and constantly you heard throughout the media that Farrakhan was a liability to this effort? Why do you think that this was constantly promoted ? Many times I've heard individual <,... you want to separate the messages from the messenger, although Farrakhan was the one who initiated this effort, was the one who provided the financing for the effort through the Nation of Islam, why was this constantly promoted?

Neely Fuller: Why was what constantly promoted?

HM: The fact that the media or individuals that were presenting the media wanted to separate Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam from organizing the Million Man March and also supporting the MMM.

Neely Fuller: Well, the only thing that I could say is, to the extent that a white supremacist had anything to do with making these remarks, because I don't believe in charging the media with anything. What you have is people who write. Some of them are white supremacists and some of them are not. Now the people who are white supremacists are going to write whatever will be favorable to white supremacy. That's the way a white supremacist writes. Then we should get away from even using the term, the media, because we're using the media right now. We are the media. I am talking on the telephone, that IS the media. I am talking to a number of people in a room, that is the media. The internet is the media. ....<unintelligible> ... is the media. Newspapers are the media. So that's what we have. You have to walk through it and pick out who is the white supremacist sitting behind a desk writing things in behalf of white supremacy, and pinpoint the problem.

John Bilal: Mr. Marannis?

David Marannis: Yes.

John Bilal: Are you a white person?

David Marannis: Yes I am.

John Bilal: Go ahead, please.

HM: Have you any comment, Mr. Marannis?

David Marannis: Um, in response to the question of the media, the messenger and the message?

John Bilal: Yes.

David Marannis: I think that uh it was clear that Louis Farrakhan uh organized the march and that people came for a lot of different reason. Some came because of him and a lot came to express themselves and their own feelings. I think that there are actually a lot of, a lot of white columnists who don't like Farrakhan, were making the argument that you can't separate the march from Farrakhan. They were saying that they don't like Farrakhan, they don't like his beliefs and therefore anybody who went to the March was simply playing up to Farrakhan. I disagree with that.

JD: Um, Mr. Marannis?

David Marannis: Yes.

JD: Okay, um, I would like to find out why you said that people came for different reasons, and uh as I see, the week prior to that uh, we were bombarded with negative ideas from the media forcing uh uh so called black leaders to uh, to uh, to remove themselves from uh, actually themselves from Louis Farrakhan. And I think that that is a disservice, when we were trying to get together and you guys obviously are trying to come back and say, ‘ you people cannot get together' and this is a disservice to this society.

David Marannis: Well, I think that you are right. That that the notion of forcing people to denounce Farrakhan is stupid. Uh, I certainly would never do that and I didn't do it, um, but on the other hand that's not the same thing as saying that everybody who came on the March agreed with Louis Farrakhan's politics. You see I think you're looking at it, uh, there's two ways to look at the same problem. One is being mad at the media for trying to force other black leaders to denounce Farrakhan, but you have to understand that is was actually the anti-Farrakhan forces within the media that kept saying, ‘this march is Farrakhan's, anybody who comes believes what Farrakhan believes, um, that is the part that I think is stupid.

Bill Reaves: Okay, are you, but in your article here, you said that most of the people there were uh, here, uh (quote) you said that, "Farrakhan followers and separatists seem vastly outnumbered by middle-aged professional black men who traveled to Washington not to answer the fiery Minister's call".

David Marannis: Right.

Bill Reaves: So in your article you're saying that most of the people,...

David Marannis: That's what our own poll of um the people who came and my own interviews with people showed.

Bill Reaves: Okay, and you're saying,...

David Marannis: Farrakhan organized it; he made it possible, but that doesn't mean that that the people came, came because of Farrakhan.

Bill Reaves: Now you're saying,..

Neely Fuller: I have a question. Do you think that when white people sometimes ask black people questions using a microphone, that black people do not always say exactly what they are thinking?

David Marannis: Well, I think that's true of everybody and I think it's probably more true in America, or I should say in the world. It's probably more true when it's cross racial interviewing.

Neely Fuller: Do you think that white people, when they are asked, ‘are they prejudicial or do they have anything against black people' and they say no, do you think that most white people, when they say no, are telling the truth?

David Marannis: Well, I think most people are probably racist so, I mean at one level or another um and I don't know whether people always tell the truth on that I, but it depends on how you interview them and at what length; find out the truth.

Neely Fuller: I see.

Bill Reaves: So consequently you're saying that now you don't think that the people may not have, that the people who you were interviewing, they said they didn't come to hear Farrakhan, may not have been telling the truth.?

David Marannis: No I am not saying that.

Bill Reaves: So, but you have a way of ascertaining that the people you interviewed were telling the truth.

David Marannis: You can never know whether anybody is always telling the truth. I'm just saying that I felt that I was talking to people on an honest level and I think that they were telling me the truth.

John Bilal: Mr. Marannis.

David Marannis: Yes.

John Bilal: In your article there's a part in here that talks about what Farrakhan uh said in his speech, that um, you say he is charging at one point that white supremacy was at the root of the nation's suffering and has produced a sick society and a sick world. Okay, um, are you separating the message from the messenger when you say that the march was not organized as an affirmative action against white supremacy?

David Marannis: That is not how the uh March was organized. That is not what is was called; it was called a Day of Atonement and Reconciliation.

John Bilal: Okay uh you agree that Mr. Farrakhan organized the March?

David Marannis: He was the originator of the idea and um, yeah.

John Bilal: Okay, Mr. Farrakhan made the statement (s), according to your article and those of us who heard it, that white supremacy was at the root at the nation's suffering and uh Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, appeared to agree with him, that the nation's suffering had something to do with white racism.

David Marannis: Right.

John Bilal: Okay, and you're saying that, the event on the mall, even though it was called a Day of Atonement and a Day of Reconciliation, had nothing whatever to do with the sickness,... that, yeah.?

David Marannis: No, I am not saying that at all. I'm saying that, obviously that's part of it; not all of what it was.

Bill Reaves: Okay, so consequently, what I'm asking you is, do you think that the large number of people who came don't recognize that what Minister Farrakhan said that the white supremacy is the sickness that's preventing the nation from progressing and that they agree with that message.

David Marannis: What I would say, No, I'm not saying that. I'm not saying they disagree with that message at all. I'm just saying that that's not the only reason they came, and that the whole, that the larger point of of their coming was that you can't just blame everything on white supremacy and that we have to work within ourselves to better our own communities. I mean Farrakhan said that.

Neely Fuller: You can't blame everything like what?

David Marannis: You can't blame all the problems of our, I'm not saying this, Farrakhan said it. Well, I mean, one of the points of the whole march was, we can't just blame all of our problems on other people.

Neely Fuller: Okay, other people like who?

David Marannis: Like the, like white people.

Neely Fuller: Well, like white people who do what? See the contingent here is that there are some white people, presumably,.....

David Marannis: I agree with, well, I think there are white racists, you see you can't blame all, you can't blame all black problems on white racists.

Neely Fuller: Okay, then if, then you, then we get back to where we were a few minutes ago when you said that you didn't agree with the statement that white supremacy exists; because it either does or it doesn't. And if it does, it means that the problems of black people stem from the existence of white supremacy. That's pure logic.

David Marannis: Well, if that is the pure logic, then Louis Farrakhan disagrees with you.

Neely Fuller: How do you say Louis Farrakhan disagrees with me, not that that matters,...

David Marannis: Because he doesn't make it an either or situation. He doesn't say, I mean he says clearly, ‘ there's white racism in America, it's what has made white, it is what has made this country sick', he said that. He also said that black, we as black people can't, can't just blame everything on whites and we can't just improve by blaming everything on white supremacy, but we have to take action within ourselves; we have the power to do it.

Neely Fuller: And take action in order to, in order to do what? What ,... <unintelligible>...

David Marannis: To help ourselves improve, um economically and socially in this country.

Neely Fuller: Alright, the system of white supremacy is designed to prevent black people from improving, that's what it's about, otherwise there would be no need to have a system of white supremacy. White supremacy is not about helping black people to improve anything, so that means that if black people improve themselves, it's gonna be at the expense of the whole doctrine of white supremacy. That is pure counter racist logic.

John Bilal: Mr. Marannis.

David Marannis: Yes.

John Bilal: Do you remember during the speech um Minister Farrakhan was talking about a person whose name was Lynch? I don't remember his first name, I think it was William, William Lynch and he said at one point in his lecture that what he wanted to do was have Mr. Lynch and his philosophy, die a natural death. When he was speaking about that of, in my thinking, he was talking about the things that Mr. Lynch said, that you can turn black people against themselves; you can have them speak, think, and act against their own selves and have a self-perpetuating system that keeps black people in check, and what I think that Mr. Farrakhan said is that we need to reverse this and stop tearing each other down; stop destroying our own communities, but with the end goal of destroying an idea of thought, speech, and action coming from white people, specifically those white people who practice racism, and who practice what Mr. Lynch taught.

David Marannis: I think that that was..., I think that Farrakhan was absolutely right about that. And I think I understood that part of his lecture and agreed with him.

John Bilal: But you don't accept the part where he says that the root cause of the nation's suffering is white supremacy?

David Marannis: I, I, I, don't disagree with the fact that white racism has totally clouded everything in the United States. I agree with that.

John Bilal: But, but in terms of uh,...

David Marannis: And, I think there are two different issues. I'm not disagreeing with, with the, the fact that racism exists in America and that it's an awful thing and that it's the root of a lot of problems in this country.

Neely Fuller: Well, why do you think white people keep moving and buying new houses? I mean they completely vacate an area particularly when their offspring become of school age and particularly their female offspring, their little white girls.

John Bilal: Uh, Mr. Fuller, I think he's on another call right now.

HM Mr. Fuller. I can't understand why people would say that no one wanted to hear Louis Farrakhan. When I was there, I saw literally thousands of people listening and paying attention to what Louis Farrakhan had to say. I don't understand how he can say he's talked to a few people and said they came down there for reasons other than to hear or listen to Louis Farrakhan. It doesn't make any sense.

David Marannis: ... <unintelligible>,.. that everybody stopped and listened when he talked, I'm not saying that they didn't want to listen to him.

Neely Fuller: Uh, uh, I would like to ask a question. If at the last minute, for some reason, say a day before the March, it was decided that Minister Farrakhan, and this is pure hypothetical, would say, for the best interest in suppressing controversy, that he wasn't going to participate, do you think that would have made a substantial difference?

David Marannis: No.

Neely Fuller: Oh, you think the people would have come anyway?

David Marannis: Well, it depends on whether he said wasn't, why he said he wasn't gonna participate, probably, that I think most people would have come anyway, at that point.

Neely Fuller: Suppose that he said he wasn't gonna participate and that he'd denounced the whole thing because it had, you know , other people had infiltrated it and it was going to turn out to be something that he didn't want it to be and therefore he was saying that he wasn't going to participate, he doesn't have anything to do with it, and he was denouncing the March. Do you think people would still have come in the numbers that they did to hear the other speakers speak?

David Marannis: That's an interesting hypothetical question.

Neely Fuller: ...<unintelligible>...,hypothetical.

David Marannis: I think the March,... it might be true that, that, no other person could have called this March. But I think that once the momentum for it built, that Farrakhan was not um, was not the only thing drawing people to it and that it would have gone on at a large level without him, yes.

Bill Reaves: So you think that the answer to the question that Mr. Fuller just said is that you still think that 400,000 (and counting) people would have come?

David Marannis: You see there's a difference between having Farrakhan denounce it and turning it into a controversy again or him just not showing up. I don't know what would have happened if he had denounced it. That's different. But I'm saying that if he just had not been part of it at that point, I think the same amount of people would have come.

Bill Reaves: The question again that you said that if he did not show up, no one would have known he wasn't showing up. Had he denounced it and announced that he would not have shown up, do you think that all of the um men that were there on Monday would have shown up?

David Marannis: I think some men would not have shown up and some men who didn't come, would have shown up.

Bill Reaves: Okay, and you think that the numbers would have been the same?

Neely Fuller: Been the same numbers?

Bill Reaves: That's such a hypothetical question, I can't answer that, ... it would have come out about the same.

Neely Fuller: That is true, that is true. I can understand that, because I wouldn't know the answer to that question myself.

David Marannis: Right.

Bill Reaves: Okay, so, but consequently even though, uh taking into consideration ...

David Marannis: No, I think a lot of people didn't come because of Farrakhan. A lot of people came because of Farrakhan, and probably the most people came for reasons that had nothing to do with either.

JD: Excuse me, uh, you know one thing, I think the uh, media, bombarddment, ....criticism of Farrakhan was victory for all of us. Because if it wasn't one day O.J., the next day it was Farrakhan, the next day it was,... the next week it would be Colin Powell. Okay, and I think uh, that really puts a lot of emphasis into a lot of black people's mind, and who understood what you guys were in to about doing to us, that's why a lot of people showed up, to make the media shut up.

David Marannis: Why would it make the media shut up?

JD: You saw the outcome.

David Marannis: I'm sorry.

JD: You saw the outcome, right?

David Marannis: I don't understand,...

JD: What I'm saying is that, based on the outcome of so many people that came out, that's what the media should, should come out and say, well you know, what we really wanted to do did not happen, because you guys didn't want for anybody to show up over there at all.

David Marannis: You say, "you guys", I thought it was wonderful that so many people showed up. I don't know what you're talking about.

JD: I think the media, you people,... <laughter>,...

David Marannis: Must have ran, <unintelligible> , of articles about it and most of them were totally positive. Why are you so angry about the Post?

JD: What I am angry about is all of those uh, what you call it, all of those negative things you put before the March. By saying too many things about Farrakhan this, and Farrakhan that, and so on and so forth and you didn't want anybody to show up at all.

David Marannis: That's absolutely not true.

XX: Sir, one more question. Do you feel that Colin Powell not showing up at the March will affect him politically and do you feel that his language when he refers to the black community makes it sound as though he is outside the black community?

David Marannis: Um, I'm not sure. I know that um, I've seen a poll that showed that Powell is more popular right now, um among white voters than black voters, and that uh if he ran against Clinton right this minute, Clinton would get more of the African American vote that Powell would.

Neely Fuller: Why do you think he is more popular with white voters?

David Marannis: Well, I .... who knows. There are a lot of reason.

Neely Fuller: Excellent answer.

David Marannis: Um, but I mean that whole question is a fascinating one, but um,...

John Bilal: Mr. Marannis.

David Marannis: Yes.

John Bilal: Yes, um, I would like to thank you for participating in our discussion. Your article was well written and um, I...

David Marannis: I can see it touched a nerve and uh that surprised me and I urge you all to go read the story I wrote the day before, but I understand how sensitive these issues are, but my whole history of writing about race relations, which I've done a lot over the last ten years, has been pretty sensitive. I must have used a word or two in that article that rubbed people wrong. Maybe it was just that it viewed within the context of all of the other anti-Farrakhan theses.

John Bilal: Within the context of this discussion with the Awake Study Group, uh we've found it to be an interesting article. We've found that it had some things in it that needed to be explored further and it's not so much the raw nerve as it was the fact that it did uh make us do some thinking.

David Marannis: Okay, great, well thanks a lot for calling.

John Bilal: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Fuller, any parting comments from the discussion with uh Mr. Marannis.?

Neely Fuller: Always an interesting exchange, in fact, I'd like to say to the study group that what you want is more dialogue, precision dialogue, precision dialogue. The idea of countering racism, ending, replacing white supremacy with justice, I would say, should be your focus anytime you start out, and have this dialogue with white people in more of a questioning form rather than commentary or making statements because it is the answers that you get from white people that'll give you the most insight.

John Bilal: Right, uh do you have any um further observations uh concerning the March and um, and/or the um speech that uh President Clinton made the other day?

Neely Fuller: Um, no, except that he made a statement and that is and under the counter racist code, uh white people are supposed to be talking about race, racism and counter racism and how to replace white supremacy with justice twenty-four hours a day. That should be their entire reason for being, because that is the most important problem on the planet earth. If they're doing anything else, that makes them suspect of perpetuating what already is. And no correct thinking person should want what already is. Ending racism is the only business that should be priority by anyone who is consciousness enough to be aware that such a thing exists anywhere on this planet, any minute of any day, and that's, whether it applies to Mr. Clinton, or his offspring, or the people he knows, or just an average white person that you pass in the parking. That's what supposed to be on that person's mind. If they have anything else on their mind, they're wasting everybody's time.

John Bilal: Do you think that the March on Washington, the Million Man March was something constructive and something that should be encouraged?

Neely Fuller: According to the code, anytime a black person is doing anything or saying anything in behalf in helping the victims of white supremacy and/or ending white supremacy, that person is doing what that person is ordained to do, according to the situation that the person is in. And presumably the situation that all non-white people are in is subjection to the system of white supremacy. For every person who is marching, talking, this little conversion we had today, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. That's your assignment, if you use counter-racist logic, if you use any kind of scientific logic for being here on this planet. The main thing that any person supposed to be doing on this planet at any given time is solving problems, solving problems, if there is a problem to be solved, then you always start with the greatest problem. And according to compensatory logic, the greatest problem is racism in the form of white supremacy. Hello.

John Bilal: Yes, uh, we were sitting here thinking about some of the things you were saying. Um anybody has any questions for Mr. Fuller?

Bill Reaves: Mr. Fuller, um as an after thought, could you give us a list of questions, um given the past exchange we just had, that you think might be constructive to ask Mr. Marannis?

Neely Fuller: Questions to ask him?

Bill Reaves: Yes.

Neely Fuller: You mean subsequent to this particular,....

Bill Reaves: Yes.

Neely Fuller: Uh, no I can't think of anything right now, because in the interest as most of you all are aware of, of a scientific approach, once you've had a talk of this kind you have to study everything that you have said, very carefully, and everything that was said to you, very carefully, and then make your evaluation as to what your next questions would be. That's what you call science.

John Bilal: Mr. Fuller, during the taping um the tape failed um because uh the batteries went dead, uh so at one point there's a segment of that, that is lost, but uh I think there's enough of it that is retrievable to um do some research on.

Neely Fuller: That is a significant scientific error.

John Bilal: I agree.

Bill Reaves: Well, Mr. Fuller, what I was asking I guess is um, I have some notes here that I'm going to study the conversion with, I was saying do you have anything to add to those notes?

Neely Fuller: Not right now. I would like to get a transcript of what was said to the best of anybody's knowledge and go over it. I'm sorry that some of it was lost because I thought it was super productive, if you study everything word by word that was said, and something that can be used by the people right there at the space center and anywhere else in the world.

John Bilal: I'd like to say that most of it was caught, um maybe the last um, I would say, maybe ten minutes of it, um was lost.

Neely Fuller: Uh uh, well, whatever can be salvaged can probably be of some productive value to people anywhere on this planet.

John Bilal: Right, um Mr. Fuller we're going to go ahead and um, unless someone has any other comments or um, Carl Taylor has a question.

Neely Fuller: Yes, sir.

CT: Yes, Mr. Fuller, what would your response be to people who come up to you, white people who come up to you and say, well I'm not a racist and I think you guys did a good job, but I have a problem with Farrakhan. You find yourself in a semi....

Neely Fuller: You do not have to discuss Minister Farrakhan because you are not his boss.

CT: Oh, okay.

Neely Fuller: You see, that's number one. I disagreed to mention it for the sake of information but according to compensatory code, you don't have to discuss what any other non-white person is doing or not doing or saying or didn't say, ever, to a white person. And the first thing you let that white person know is that you are not the master, or the boss of Minister Farrakhan. You are not in charge of him. In fact, you're not even in charge of yourself. Now if they want to talk about what your opinion is on the issues of replacing white supremacy with justice, then let's talk. That is the way to go, straight from the shoulder without getting into a round robin conversation that'll take you all the way around the Alps and back.

Bill Reaves: Mr. Fuller, um, that's basically considered given any victim of racism, uh, a victim guaranteed qualification,...

Neely Fuller: What guaranteed qualification? Minister has the guaranteed qualification by being a victim of white supremacy, by him being non-white, he's automatically a victim of white supremacy according to counter-racist logic. So therefore, as a victim, he has the guaranteed qualification, to say, to say, to say, anything that he chooses to say that has to do with race, racism, or counter racism.. That's the issue itself. Not any non-white people, but about the issue of race, racism, and counter racism, he's qualified by birth within the system of white supremacy to do that. He can say whatever he wants to say and so can you, but what the code requires as a suggestion, is that you, not make a comment on what Minister Farrakhan says and then try to evaluate it to a white person who may be a white supremacist. So your job according to compensatory counter racist logic is to say, sir if you want to talk or ma'am, if you want to talk about Minister Farrakhan, you'll have to talk to Minister Farrakhan, about Minister Farrakhan, not to me. Now if you want to talk to me about me and my problems, let's talk. That's the way it should be done.

Bill Reaves: Mr. Fuller, a slight variation of that and I think this is what Carl is asking about, he may have to clarify it for himself. In general, um there is a thought or suspicion that whatever problem that the person has with Farrakhan, the problem the person also has a similar or the same problem with you, consequently in the interest of having a constructive discussion in anything, I think another part of the code may be admittedly contradict itself sometimes, but......or they're contradicting, or it made apparent contradiction that um the person may want to say simply, to ask, what problem are you speaking of that you have with Mr. Farrakhan, if you wanted to go on and you wanted to continue the discussion.

Neely Fuller: Oh, you can always ask questions. You can always ask white person questions, but if a white person asks you questions about another victim of white supremacy, you'll say that "I don't know enough about that particular victim". You don't have to,......cause you being white, you can find out this information from the person, him or herself. In other words, any white person that wants to come to me and ask me about Colin Powell, I'll say Mr. Powell is available to you. Mr. Powell can answer questions about himself to you directly and probably be most glad to do so by you being white. So why should you come to me to ask me about Mr. Powell, when I can't even control my own circumstances, because I'm a victim of white supremacy just like he is. All victims of white supremacy are available to white people, alright. So you don't have to come and ask John Brown, who is black, about Joe Smith , who is black, if you are white. You can go directly to Joe Smith. You see the dichotomy ? The logic of it?

Bill Reaves: Yes, and in this example, however, though Carl, and this happens and it happens all the time and this is what I think he's asking about and the detail of the situation is this. The person didn't ask him about Farrakhan.

CT: Then what do you think that the person,....

Bill Reaves: Well, what they usually do, and what you said was they come up and say, you guys did well, I'm in support of the March, but I just have a problem with Farrakhan. And typically what happens is a non-white person just starts talking then.

Neely Fuller: That's a mistake.

Bill Reaves: And what um,....

Neely Fuller: When a white person comes up to you and makes a statement about Minister Farrakhan, what are you supposed to do according to counter racist logic?

John Bilal: Be silent.

Neely Fuller: You're supposes to say, "Do you have a question"? That's if you say anything at all. The usual procedure is not to say anything. Now if the person has a question, and the person asks the question, then you answer the question. Now if the question is, ‘what do you think of minister Farrakhan', the answer is, according to counter racist logic, is ‘ he's a victim of white supremacy'. You know that about him because he's non-white. <laughter> And if they ask anything else, you say, "now you have to go talk to him about that, because I don't know anything about that". "I just know that he's a victim of white supremacy. All non-white people are.

John Bilal: Um, Mr. Fuller, I wanted to add an item of note. This morning on the um news uh I heard that there was a report. A hot news flash is what they called it, that Colin Powell had been found to be descendant from ancient European royalty, and then they went through and said that he was part Scottish, and part English, and part uh Jamaican, and a few other things. It was just interesting to hear that.

Neely Fuller: He's part black?

John Bilal: Yes, they said he was,....

Neely Fuller: Then he's all black according to counter-racist logic.

John Bilal: They said that he was part Arowak Indian.

Neely Fuller: So is my cousin Suzie. <laughter> Hello.

John Bilal: Yes, we're right here.

Neely Fuller: And on and on, ad infinitum. I'm a part of a snowflake, somewhere on the Alps, if you want to look at it like that. My classification is non-white under the system of white supremacy and that's the most important thing in my existence, even though I may have stepped on an ant this morning, I'm apart of that ant. I'm apart of that ant's soul maybe, if you just want to nit pick, but nitpicking ain't about what white supremacy is about, except when the white supremacists start nitpicking.

Bill Reaves: Mr. Fuller, getting back to Carl's question, I think this is the strategy he was looking for, um. There is a situation when people make a statement, and I've read it in the code before where you say for example, verbatim in the code, it says, ‘what do you think of Mr. Farrakhan's, for example, policy? And the question is, ‘which policy'?

Neely Fuller: Which policy, yes. These are questions. You see, you don't make statements. You wait for the person to ask you a question, and then when they ask you a question, you have to ask the person another question to make the question specific. People have a way of asking, what you call, abstract questions, meaning, questions that are not very clear. Racists are very expert at this. Hello.

Bill Reaves: Yes. And then, I think what Carl was looking for, I think , would he have been in line when the person said, ‘you guys, I appreciate the March and you guys did good', or whatever he said and then he said, but,..

Neely Fuller: You guys?

Bill Reaves: He said something like that.

Neely Fuller: Wait a minute. I mean, who are ‘you guys'? See you stop ‘em right from the beginning.

Bill Reaves: Exactly, and this is what I,..

Neely Fuller: You know. "How do you know I went to a march"? Did you see me? You know. "What are you talking about"? <laughter> I mean, see, you stop ‘em right from,.....in the world are you talking about and why are we having this conversion? Where is this suppose to go? What is this suppose to produce? See you can immediately start raising questions yourself now. First of all, you want to know, ‘why you're talking to me about this'? Then let them answer. There's a reason they single you out to talk about the O.J. thing. You know, somebody comes up and say, ‘well, what do you think of O.J.? Well, why are you asking me, I wasn't on trial, you know. I didn't have anything to do with it. I hadn't been to California in years, maybe. What are you talking about?

Bill Reaves: And then they say uh, well I was just asking you because I wanted a black person's opinion.

Neely Fuller: Oh, you wanted a black person's opinion. Why do you want a black person opinion, in order to accomplish what?

CT: But usually the conversion ends at that point, they'll just separate it,...

Neely Fuller: Well, it doesn't make any difference. You see, you're not looking for conversation, you're looking for solutions to problems which is what the whole space center is set up to do. Solve problems. Now if they're not about solving problems, if they can't state the problems they're trying to solve, when they start the conversation, what is the point of the conversation.

CT: The point is that they're feeling, in my opinion, they're feeling guilty. They want to,...

Neely Fuller: Wait now, wait a minute, hold it right there. See, you don't know what they're feeling. See, let's be scientific about it. This is what you want to find out from them. .....nothing into. You're gonna do it just like they do in court, you say wait a minute, ‘you are asking me these questions for a reason', ‘what is the reason you are asking these questions'. And presumably, like Mr. Reeves said, the person might say, ‘I'm asking you these questions because you're black'. And the next question is ‘why are you asking me these questions because I'm black?' He didn't come to ask you some questions because you are black when you were looking to buy a house? Why ask you some questions because you're black about Farrakhan or OJ Simpson? See, these are the questions that you want answered. You want to find out the motive for all of these questions being directed to you in order to solve a problem. There's a problem here somewhere. Now what problem are you trying to solve or are you trying to help make a problem. It's either one or the other. Either you're trying to solve one or trying to help make one. Which is it. And you can find that out by asking questions.

CT: Unusually, it's not as deep as that, they just want to have a conversation with you, knowing that you may have gone down there.

Neely Fuller: People just don't have conversations. That's another thing. There ain't no such as people just having,...when people just have conversations, people are trying to communicate for some reason. That's a male talking to a female or whatever, in a nightclub. There is a reason for the conversation. And what you want to know is what is the conversation for. If he just wanted to have conversation, he'd come and ask you about do you know anything about geraniums, but he told you that he picked you out because you were black. Now that gives a certain focus right there, that's immediately obvious. Why are you talking to me because I'm black about this particular thing, when you don't talk to me because I'm black, about everything. Do you talk to me about your daughter, because I'm black? Do you talk to me about your girlfriend on the side because I'm black? Why do ask me about OJ Simpson because I'm black? And what is your reason for doing so in order to solve what problem.. That's the type of way that you do when you're doing scientific counter racist thinking procedure.

End of Transcript

This interview is brought to you by the Awake Study Group, c/o Black History Club at GSFC at Greenbelt Maryland. Any inquiries as to this document should be directed to John S. Bilal II, Workforce Diversity Committee at Code 220, NASA, GSFC, Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771. Thank You, PEACE.

Homepage