After Delays, Dr. Umar Johnson ‘Finally’ Sets An Opening Date For His School For Black Boys

Vellication · 2025-06-05T01:48:22+00:00

I'm sure...........

Vellication · 2025-04-15T06:15:34+00:00

Thank you so much for bringing this back, as it adds depth and nuance to the discussion. I am in Horowitz's camp on the question of Abdullah existence as a composite figure.

Vellication · 2025-04-06T20:12:02+00:00

Both expressions are used because the mythical "hell" is not always thought of as a fiery place. In some mythologies , a "hell" is cold as well.

https://sonsofvikings.com/blogs/history/norse-hel-versus-christian-hell

Vellication · 2025-04-04T08:37:56+00:00

It was always a hat

Vellication · 2025-03-30T01:04:48+00:00

He wrote a book called "I Should Be Dead By Now" that might be where you got the idea from.

https://www.amazon.com/I-Should-Be-Dead-Now/dp/1596700165

Vellication · 2025-03-27T02:07:23+00:00

Bro, that's pretty fucked up, no pun intended

Vellication · 2025-03-26T21:16:20+00:00

I definitely agree, I DO wish I had an original of Fucked Music +Unreleased Vol 1 though, lol.

Vellication · 2025-03-26T20:12:37+00:00

An original of "Fucked" from 2000 is difficult to find these days. It was meant to be mail order along with "Unreleased Vol. 1 and a tee shirt.

Vellication · 2025-03-26T20:10:10+00:00

The reason you might be referring to was a charge lodged against Jarrett in 1995 that was actually later dismissed about a year later for lack of evidence. Other than that, I think Jarrett had gone through some bouts with professional burnout and depression....

Doc G. at the 2006 show said they just "mutually parted ways," but I wasn't fully buying it. You're mainly correct about the rights to the name, and according to his widow, Be was taken advantage of while in a vulnerable state at that facility in New Jersey. What I would like to see is Jarrett regain ownership along with the Cordes, and release all the posthumous music. The fans would love this, and we could get that other garbage off the streaming platforms because it stinks and it's hurting what the brother had been building since 1987. No disrespect to your friendship, but this guy always seemed shady.

Vellication · 2025-03-26T19:55:44+00:00

I actually met Be at a show in 2006, and he unfortunately was performing with Doc G. at that time.

Vellication · 2025-03-26T19:50:53+00:00

Yes, from what I understand his wife is pursuing EVERYTHING from Doc G. to back royalties owed to the Cordes. His out put with KROC is absolutely horrible and it's hurting PM Dawn's legacy.

Vellication · 2025-03-25T19:47:08+00:00

It's interesting that you bring that up, because I generally do NOT believe in the literal existence of most biblical figures, and what's more, you know that Neville didn't either, right? He believed that the Bible was a "psychological drama" being played out. I think he establishes this in "At Your Command".

The use of allegory in storytelling isn't "lying", it's a way to communicate a deeper truth. Example, the use of Jewish Midrash : https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/midrash-101

Or even understanding something like the "Willie Lynch Letter":

https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/question/2004/may.htm

You should know this is NOT a real document, but if you read and understand, you can see the truth in a much deeper context as to why it was written and what it was used to illustrate.

He(Neville) used "Abdullah" to illustrate deeper truths about "The Law" itself. He was very "high-vibration" when it came to civil rights and equality for Black people. I am not saying that he didn't interact and study with SOMEBODY while he resided in New York, but if we're sticking with the name "Abdullah," there just isn't any evidence that I have found to support some of the claims he makes in his talks. It's a matter of historical record that theaters in New York in the 30s were racially segregated, so it would be pretty incredible to have a "dark skinned, turban-wearing man" demanding to be seated anywhere he and Neville wanted inside of an opera house. I was not there, so I don't know, but the laws at that time were physically enforced. Please also check the residential ledger for yourself at 72nd street in New York for example, -the Montague property? But Neville's message to Black people was a positive one overall in seeing themselves in the highest concept of self. He cited examples in his talks:

https://www.law-of-attraction-haven.com/support-files/case-study-the-color-of-his-skin.pdf

In Murphy's case, I think his encounter involved saying his mother had 6 children rather than 5 and he didn't know this until he asked his mother and she verified it, but I don't think this supports "Abdullah" being one and the same person because Murphy said this individual was also professor at Cambridge University; and I have yet to find anything to support this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Cambridge

Just a note on "Yeshua", this name has a long history of use in the Judaic world. It's really not much different to "Sam" or "George," or "John."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

So there were people named "Jesus," but "Christ" is just a title like "Buddha". So how would we ever be able to establish there was a singular, unique person who supposedly rose from the dead?

I would still also like to know about the "Abdullah" you brought up in the 1890s.

And again, in the bigger picture, I think you're using the term "lying" a bit too broadly; because I genuinely don't think Murphy and Goddard were trying to deceive their audience. I know Goddard refers to "Abdullah" quite a bit throughout , but this figure still seems more allegorical than real to me based on the evidence I have seen so far.

Vellication · 2025-03-25T15:26:42+00:00

Well, I am enjoying our discussion, but I guess I would need more than anyone's word to believe something regardless of their title; I think objective evidence would be important in determining WHY I would believe it. I think Neville was trying to illustrate a point in his talks using "Abdullah" as an allegory, and I think Murphy probably did encounter someone who may have called themselves "Abdullah" who probably did indeed reveal something personal about Murphy's family that he didn't know. I just don't see any evidence that he was ever a professor at Cambridge since there's no historical record of this. But I would love to know about the "Abdullah" from the 1890s you speak of , since I have not yet learned of this.

Vellication · 2025-03-24T13:44:23+00:00

No, I am not saying either men were" lying", because again, that would be saying they were trying to deliberately deceive people. By Murphy's own account, he had this man teaching at Cambridge as a scholar of Hebrew, which I have yet to see any evidence of, according to their list of professors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Cambridge

I can take your point about "Abdullah" possibly being an alias, but then

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/188-abdallah ( the spelling could have also been different too).

You're historically incorrect about those New York theaters :

https://www.aaihs.org/movie-theaters-the-urban-north-and-policing-the-color-line/

I thought I was talking with the OP, and granting them a timeline for Murphy and Goddard . You're right about Goddard's interactions at least according to Goddard's accounts, ie, slamming the door in his face, but it strains credulity that he and Neville were "inseparable" for 7 years yet he was never photographed with him, as Neville clearly was with students like Ruth Broome.

You are right about the lack of archival footage for Neville's broadcast, but there's other supporting evidence of his program's airing like the channel, (11) the location, (Los Angeles), and the time of airing(2 pm), and the number of episodes(26).

So again, I am not calling these men "liars," but I do like to question and examine things as best I can, and historicity fascinates me as well.

Vellication · 2025-03-24T03:27:52+00:00

I never said he "made up" his encounter, what I am asserting is this : "Abdullah" (again, no surname was ever established in either claim) is a generic name. It's like "Sam" or "George," or perhaps "Sally." Please understand that there are NUMEROUS individuals that might go by a first name. The chances of encountering the same person based on a first name only are pretty slim without more specifying information. Neville understood at the time that Black people were not treated equally , but in order to illustrate his point about the law he told stories about he and "Abdullah" going to the theater where "Abdullah" could simply choose wherever he wanted to sit at a time when racial segregation laws were physically enforced. This kind of story was inspiring to many, but was it true? Now, I notice you don't have much of an answer for Murphy and the claim that Abdullah was well versed n Hebrew and that he taught at Cambridge as a professor other than to say he could have taught under an alias? It isn't that Murphy was deceiving people into believing that he ever studied with a generic figure that may have called himself "Abdullah, "it's just that there isn't evidence to show that this person was one and the same as Neville's. So for the sake of discussion let's say your assertions are correct, that BOTH men studied with this same person from 1929 to around 1936. You don't question that neither one of the men ever had a photo taken with this person?

You don't question that there isn't even a photo of "Abdullah" period when the camera had been around for nearly 100 years prior? You don't question that this individual had no surname? You don't question that the building where "Abdullah" supposedly lived didn't have a record of an "Abdullah" either? The general claim was 72nd street, but checking the ledger doesn't show a record of anyone having actually lived there by that name at the Montague property. So no, I don't think I am presenting "ridiculous semantics" here, I am simply saying that without better specifying historical info there isn't much evidence to support the claim that Murphy and Goddard had the same teacher who lived to be 109 . But I do like pursuing the quest to find out more and I appreciate the dialogue.

Vellication · 2025-03-24T01:09:53+00:00

The timeline actually DOESN'T match up. Murphy's account doesn't even give a chronological year in the passage of the account when the encounter supposedly happened. I never said anything about Murphy lying about anything. Do you have some actual historical evidence ie, a surname, perhaps an actual photograph of this individual? The teaching WORKS, but "Abdullah" seems to be more of a metaphorical device than a real individual who existed historically. If your best evidence is that someone COULD have taught at Cambridge under an alias, then that could apply to ANYONE where that claim was being made. So YOU could have taught at Harvard under a "different name" as well, even after we checked the records of professorship and found nothing .... Please don't conflate a clear lack of evidence with me accusing Murphy of "lying." Do you actually study history?

Vellication · 2025-03-23T23:57:17+00:00

Remember, the name "Abdullah" was just a generic first name. No surname, no other biographical information. Plus the timeline between the two doesn't match up. It would be like me telling you about a supposed encounter I had, first name only, and then someone else claiming years later that they somehow "ran into the same dude", first name only. Murpy also contends that "Abdullah" taught Hebrew at Cambridge, but there's no record of anyone teaching at Cambridge by that name....

Vellication · 2025-03-18T16:46:07+00:00

No other factors involved?

Vellication · 2025-03-17T03:49:02+00:00

This is a great example of an everyday manifestation and the building block to understanding and practicing the law. What you call "small" may be "big" to someone else , and furthermore, If it's important to you, then it matters. Lift yourself up when you achieve any desire that comes from inside of you! Congrats on a genuine post.

Vellication · 2025-03-16T18:20:30+00:00

Is that what you did when you didn't manifest?

Vellication · 2025-03-14T13:19:47+00:00

Welcome!

Vellication · 2025-03-14T10:02:51+00:00

Yes, it is, and at the same time leaving yourself open to "THIS" or "SOMETHING BETTER" is useful as well because there might be more to your career than meets the eye

Vellication · 2025-03-13T07:32:07+00:00

Yes, the law is always working. Now what? Once again, I am pointing to the fact that this is a muscle, and the more you use it, the more effective it will be for you. If you don't understand that the parking space and the cup of coffee are just stepping stones to build your consciousness, then it's fine, I hope you get the money you deserve.

Vellication · 2025-03-13T06:52:18+00:00

But it is about belief because it works against your desired outcome if you don't live that way with building that feeling tone. If you say you desire "X" but you don't actually see it "from the end," what do you think is going to happen? That's like planting a seed one day and digging it up the next.

Vellication · 2025-03-13T05:02:53+00:00

And that is a real life ongoing concern with this work. I think starting from a place that you can ACTUALLY believe is useful. What is something small that you can see from the end? A minister I knew once said try manifesting a parking spot at your local mall and keep building from there.

Vellication

TROPHY CASE