THE EVIL ACCIDENT OF TIME:

Recently, I was blessed to speak with my Teacher, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, wherein I asked him concerning ‘the evil accident of time’...

...and coming from what the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad has taught regarding the reality of ALLAH (GOD) and His Mastery over all the Forces of his Creation, my question to him was “Why is the term ‘accident’ associated with time?” ...
And again, coming from the mindset that ALLAH (GOD) is the Author of Time, the Giver of Life, and the Cause of Death, where does ‘accident’ come in?
...Considering my question, I was thoroughly enlightened by his response, and I’d like to share with you the guidance I got from him in this study:
‘Evil’ means to exceed the measure or limit. An ‘accident’ is what we commit when conducting our lives and affairs without giving what we do much thought.
I’m reminded right here of how the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that we must think 5x’s before we speak. I’m sure many of us may be tempted to say 5x’s before we do...
...however, before we act, there is the word that sets our thinking into motion, and if we do not take our time by the virtue of patience, we will inevitably commit accidents.
Remember, ALLAH (GOD) has given each and every one of us ‘Free-Will’. In most cases, we as human beings are experiencing an underdeveloped Will, meaning that we might stop at an idea, without actualizing or materializing that will.
The more we practice limiting our will by our convoluted thoughts, is the degree to which we will weaken our capacity to make happen our desires.

If it does not matter to you, it will not matter coming into existence.
Consider this; we cause our own accidents.
An 'accident' is defined as: “an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury” (Oxford).
Our brains were Designed to operate perfectly. Doubt is the great enemy of the power of our will, and disbelief in anything that we desire splits our focus and weakens the energy needed to bring it into existence. Time is based on movement, from one point to another.
Now, imagine this: from the moment you perceive an idea to the point of its actualization, your brain becomes convoluted by ill-influences that generally come from unproductive associations, and now you have the equation of an evil accident of time.
This can be avoided by simply taking our time to analyze and examine our own thinking before acting. Yes, we can shorten our lives and lose them altogether in an untimely way if we do not think carefully about the things we do and say.
I remember in a conversation with my brother, our National Assistant to the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Student Minister Ishmael Muhammad...
... he shared with me [paraphrasing] that even though a certain future may be predicted for us by the wise scientists, we are still responsible for conducting our lives in obedience to the laws that will carry us into the reality of that predicted future.
So it is with the Promise of ALLAH (GOD) and the prophecies given by His Prophets and Messengers, which could be summed up in the following verses from the Holy Quran:
“O you who believe, what (excuse) have you that when it is said to you, Go forth in Allah's way, you should incline heavily to earth? Are you contented with this world's life instead of the Hereafter?The provision of this world's life is but little as compared with the Hereafter.
If you go not forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement, and bring in your place a people other than you, and you can do Him no harm. And Allah is Possessor of power over all things.” (HQ 9:38-39)
The Promise of ALLAH (GOD) is assured only through our obedience to His Will. Disobedience to the Will of ALLAH results in the evil accident of time. Thank you for reading these words, and I pray they will help us to avoid greater accidents in the future. 😇

More from For later read

@snip96581187 @Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen Clearly, because as I have been saying for 8 months now, DTRA and DARPA have been using Ecohealth and UC Davis to collect novel pathogens for gain of function work back in the USA. I have documented this in many threads which I will post here just to annoy everyone.

@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
I shared this on my FB page and asked, can ya really blame him?

I was half kidding. I also assumed someone would think of what I did pretty quickly and waiting for the comment to mention what I assumed was obvious.

The timing. I was sure someone else had thought of it.


But no one did. 20+ comments in people discussed the morality or bad sense or libertarian perspectives. Someone even said I’m thinking about doing that. No one said what I thought was obvious. Have you thought of it? Is it obvious to you?

Here’s a clue...recognize it?


How about this?


The author discusses it with Mike Wallace in 1958
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like