Ms LATCHMIE BUDHAR

M'lilwana Osanku <childrenofsancho@ yahoo.com> wrote:
At first, I really did not read this bit of utter rubbish – before I replied as I did previously. Therefore I did not really realize how horrible it really is. Your thoughts are as heinous as the acts of criminals who victimize and murder innocent people especially young children and females. Your expressions could only originate from a racism mindset.
 However, I am extremely happy you recognized I am behind a rock. It is obvious I stand upon and behind a rock named Sancho. If you had any sense of the history of Africans in Guyana you would have an appreciation for the moral fiber of the kinship of Sancho. Apparently you do not – therefore allow me to lecture you- they obviously did not teach real social history in the schools of Guyana. 
Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho, two brothers were the leading shareholders of Golden Grove on the East Coast of Demerara in January to may 1848. During the riots of February 18, 1856 known as the Angel Gabriel riots Bentick Sancho my rock, my messiah, and my representative did exactly what I would have done. Bentick Sancho stood firmly against the destruction of property and loss of life of Portuguese between Enmore and Belfield on the East Sea Coast of the county of Demerara in the colony of British Guiana. You can look it up it is stated clearly in the parliamentary papers respecting the riots of 1856 in British Guiana.
Before I continue let me remind you there are two folk songs about the prowess of males of the kinship of Sancho. They did not discriminate. There are today members of the kinship of Sancho who are surname and are members of the kinship of Pancham, Lutchman, Kissoon, Ramator, Mootoo, Fernandez and Rodrigues and among others. Sancho is a microcosm of the Guyanese society. It consists of all the ethnic groups found in Guyana. 
If you dare to look in the Official Gazette of British Guiana between 1848 and 1966 you will note numerous entries of Sancho. Now if you dared to look at education notices between 1928 and 1934 you would find entries listing my primary rock, Muriel Sancho. My representative was a member of the third batch of teachers trained at teachers’ training college during 1932-1934. Muriel Sancho spent 27 years of her life educating children most East Indian in Primary Schools at Port Mourant, Rose Hall in Canje, Blairmont, Cumberland, and 68 village on the Corentyne Coast. It is my intention to be buried with my rock. Another point my grand mother was known as Coolie Rachel. Her mother, my great grandmother was known as Coolie Campbell. I am sure the ancestors including mother of Coolie Campbell came from Lookna. Now I have not even told you about two other rocks named Sancho, Lambert Tuckness Sancho and Alexander Sancho. I have not pointed out such rocks as James Campbell of Unity-Lancaster who at some period in the nineteenth century owned the land upon which stands the Leprosy Asylum built by Sharples in 1859. I am trying to find the records of the transaction of the land when it was acquired by the government of British Guiana and transformed into a settlement for East Indians. It is said in my family history James Campbell owned most of the land. I have not said a word about that wonderful kinship of Young of Buxton and Friendship. If you did not know now you know – at least you ought to now be aware you should inquire of the ancestry of people before you try to belittle their integrity. It does not look and say much for your thought process. You do not have to agree with what I have stated but if you care to respond I would like to read clear and logical thoughts being expressed.
Now again I am hoping bridges are not burnt ever so badly that communications are ceased. But however, that’s your prerogative. 
I must admit I detest it whenever people get upset over politicians and religious people who for all intents and purposes does not care whether you suffer or live a relatively struggle free life. The majority of the practitioners of the two social sciences care about are themselves. It is high time people realize that fact. Why this exchange of words and or thoughts if the situation was under control by those who were elected to administrate the nation then there would be no reason to wail in any community in Guyana. How about that? Every time you look at images of the foreign embassies they are overflowing with Guyanese trying to escape the country. Well! Who is ruling the nation? I believe it is drug dealers masquerading as politicians or both supplementing each other conning the people of Guyana. I am sure it is corruption and money launders running the asylum.
Ms LATCHMIE BUDHAR <latchmie@yahoo. com wrote: 
Osanku,

1. Did you just discover there issues or you are the one here clinging to straws?
2. HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SHOULDER THIS BURDEN?
3. Are you implying that the Government sent these men to slaughter these people?
4. Are you related to Green?
5. Are you from Buxton?
6. Are you most of all STUPID?
7. And not forgetting IGNORANT?
8. Are you Guyanese?

NON OF THE ABOVE?                                                                                                                 

 Reading what you wrote is disgusting and FYI I was wondering since this incident you did not rise until now to be the site "bully" Go back behind the rock you crawled out from.

--- M'lilwana Osanku <childrenofsancho@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Satish,

 I believe you are clutching at straws. You are beating the proverbial dead horse. If you look at the total messages posted at the Buxton-Friendship forum you would realize not much activity and or participation takes places there. I am positive most of the postings are done by me. The owner of the group is like myself; a son of a career school teacher. However, it seems he has but little time and energy to galvanize the forum. He approves the messages. I do not believe random posting is allowed; for many of the messages I sent were not posted. The forum information tells the real story.

It has 30 email addresses. It was founded on Aug 31,

2002. However, if you check the number and the content of the messages you will then get the

total picture. At least you ought to have some idea

  concerning what is really going on there.

  Another point to ponder a huge number of the

  people of Buxton and friendship were formerly

  residents of Lusignan and other neighboring

  communities. In fact one of the most worthy

 figures

  in the political history of British Guiana in the

  last half of the twentieth century was birthed at

  Plantation Lusignan. He was considered a protégée

 of

  Dr. Cheddi Jagan. He was very instrumental in the

  election of Dr. Cheddi Jagan to the Legislative

  Council in November 1947 and the formation of the

  People’s Progressive Party.

  I am simply asking you not to assume what is

  simply not there. If you attempt such you would be

  doing yourself a great disservice.

 

 

  Satish <bobstores@hotmail. com wrote:

  Description: Buxton Friendship Group

  Dedicated to the establishment of Educational and

  Business projects

  and other information which might be of interest

 to members in the Buxton and Friendship villages, located on the  East Coast of Demerara in Guyana, South America. .

http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/BuxtonFrie ndship/

Activity within the last 7 days: 1 New Message

 ____________ _________ _________ _________ Skeldon Upper Corentyne Group

 Activity within the last 7 days: 218 New Messages

CONCLUSION: Someone said that we Indians are all talks.

We can see this is not the case with the Buxtonion folk.

Immaterial of what those `politically correct' contributors would say; you draw your own conclusions about the grieving in

freedom comes from daring to think for ourselves.

Imagine growing up with the certainty that there is a perfect God, omnipotent, omniscient and absolutely just.
Every prayer, every ritual, every whispered hope rested on the belief that an eternal being guided the universe with flawless wisdom.
But now pause for a moment and imagine the shock of discovering that the very sacred texts which were supposed to confirm this perfection are instead overflowing with contradictions,
harsh commands and emotions that seem anything but divine, rage, regret, jealousy, even favoritism.
Suddenly the foundation of faith begins to tremble.
The image of a flawless God shatters into fragments that look alarmingly human.
And here is the unsettling truth.
Centuries before us a man dared to confront this illusion.
His name was Baruch Spinoza, one of the boldest philosophers in history.
With only the sharp edge of reason and an unwavering devotion to truth, Spinoza dismantled the traditional

image of God exposing its fragile human construction.
In this story, we will walk through his reasoning.
We will revisit three specific verses of the Bible, three verses that should affirm God's divinity, but instead reveal him as an invention shaped by human fear politics and desire for control.
Stay with me until the end because this journey may change the way you look at faith itself.
It may alter how you understand religion, how you perceive your own freedom, and how you relate to the infinite.
And if at some point in your life you have ever questioned what was taught to you in the name of God, then perhaps this is the moment to finally open your eyes.
Before we confront those verses, we must first meet the man who dared to read them with eyes unclouded by fear.
Baruch Spinoza, a young philosopher in 17th century Amsterdam, was cast out of his Jewish community with a curse so severe that even his name was forbidden to be spoken aloud.
His crime was not violence nor betrayal, but thought thought so radical that it threatened to unravel centuries of unquestioned tradition.
Spinoza never denied the existence of God, but he shattered the familiar image.
To him, God was not a bearded patriarch seated on a throne of clouds issuing orders and punishments.
God was far greater, far more profound.
God was the totality of existence itself, the order that permeates the universe, the infinite substance in which all things live and move.
In Spinoza's eyes, to know nature was to know God, to seek truth through reason was to approach the divine.
This vision was revolutionary because it stripped away the authority of priests and prophets.
If God is not a person, but the essence of reality, then the Bible cannot be treated as a flawless decree.
It must be read like any other book shaped by its authors, influenced by history, filled with contradictions, errors, and human fears.
And with this perspective, Spinoza dared to ask questions most people still fear to raise.
It is through this lens that we now turn to the Bible not as sacred law, but as a human text.
And from within its pages, we find the first fracture that shakes the image of a perfect God.
The first crack appears in the book of Genesis, chapter 6, verse 6.
There it is written,
And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Stop for a moment and let those words settle.
A God who regrets, a God who feels sorrow, a God who suffers.
Does this sound like the voice of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, or like the confession of a human mind overwhelmed by disappointment?
For Spinoza, this verse was a devastating blow against the traditional image of God.
If God is perfect, he cannot change his mind, for perfection has no room for error.
Regret implies that something unforeseen has happened, that a mistake was made, that a choice was wrong.
But what kind of omniscient God fails to foresee the outcome of his own creation?
The logic collapses.
The supposed divinity becomes a mirror reflecting human emotions, anger, regret, disillusionment.
God argued that such verses reveal the Bible's human fingerprints.
These were not the words of an infinite intelligence but of authors who projected their own fears, frustrations, and political needs into the figure of God.
In ancient times, leaders and storytellers used this image of a regretful deity to explain suffering to justify punishment and to enforce moral order.
God was made emotional so that his authority could be felt as both intimate and terrifying.
Behind the divine mask, we find the face of humanity.
Wars were sanctified laws legitimized entire societies bound together through the image of a God who could feel pain, fury, or sorrow.
Religion in this light was less about truth and more about power, a power made unquestionable by fear.
And it all begins here in a single verse that strips God of perfection and clothes him in the fragile garments of human doubt.
If a God can regret, then what does that mean for the entire structure of faith built upon his perfection?
Genesis 6-6 does not merely describe a divine emotion.
It undermines the very idea of an infallible being.
A God who suffers sorrow is a God who falters, and a God who falters is no longer a steady foundation for eternal law.
For Spinoza, this realization was not just a philosophical puzzle, but a revelation that
religion itself was constructed on unstable ground.
The image of a God who repents and feels grief became in the hands of religious leaders a weapon
of control.
If the Almighty could change his mind, then humanity must tread carefully obeying laws,
not out of love, but out of fear, that divine anger might strike without warning.
Faith under this interpretation was transformed into submission.
The Bible ceased to be a guide toward understanding and instead became a manual for discipline,
obedience, and punishment.
But Spinoza refused to accept this distorted vision.
For him, true divinity was not a moody ruler who vacillated between affection and rage, but the eternal unchanging fabric of reality itself.
His God did not punish, did not repent, did not bleed human emotions into the cosmos.
Instead, his God was the order of nature accessible to anyone willing to think clearly, to study, to reflect.
And here lies the first great confrontation.
If the God of Genesis regrets, then he cannot be perfect.
If he cannot be perfect, then his laws lose their sacred legitimacy.
And if his laws are no longer sacred, the very authority of religion trembles.
This was Spinoza's first strike, and it was only the beginning.
For if one verse can crack the illusion, what will happen when the next exposes an even deeper
contradiction?
The second fracture emerges in the book of Exodus, chapter 32, verse 14.
It reads, And the Lord relented from the disaster which he said he would bring upon his people.
Once again, the picture is unsettling.
The same God who only moments earlier threatened to destroy his own chosen people for worshipping for a golden calf now suddenly changes his mind.
A divine about-face, an omnipotent being persuaded to let go of wrath.
For Spinoza, this verse was another devastating blow.
If God can be swayed, then his will is neither eternal nor absolute.
It reveals a portrait of a deity, not unlike a temperamental father prone to fury, quick
to punish, but capable of softening when his children plead.
But what kind of perfection depends on persuasion?
What kind of omniscience requires negotiation?
Spinoza saw through this portrayal, recognizing it as a literary device created by human authors
to make God appear closer, more relatable, even manipulable.
A God who can change his mind becomes a God who can be bargained with, and this opened
the door for priests, prophets, and leaders to declare themselves the essential mediators
of divine mercy.
Only they, it was claimed, could intercede on behalf of the people.
Only through them could God's wrath be tempered, and thus obedience was secured not by understanding,
but by fear.
This verse, like the first, exposes a deeper truth.
The biblical God is shaped to reflect human power structures.
His anger mirrors the authority of rulers.
His relenting mirrors the bargains of politics.
Far from being eternal, his will bends like that of men.
For Spinoza, such a God was not divine at all, but an invention designed to enforce submission.
And yet this realization raised an even darker question.
If God can change his mind when angry, could he not also demand atrocities when vengeful?
The next verse will not only answer this question, it will push it to its most terrifying extreme.
The story of Exodus does more than reveal a God who shifts his will.
It uncovers the very machinery of religious power.
Imagine a deity who can be enraged, persuaded, or pacified.
Such a God becomes a perfect tool in the hands of institutions.
Leaders step forward as the indispensable interpreters, the only ones who can soothe divine
anger or secure divine favor.
And through this claim, obedience is no longer optional, it becomes sacred duty.
Spinoza understood the danger of this construction.
When fear takes the place of understanding, submission becomes automatic.
Disobedience is no longer simply a difference of opinion.
It transforms into sin.
Doubt becomes guilt.
And thought becomes heresy.
With one stroke, religion converts natural human questioning into a moral crime.
The chains tighten not of iron, but of the mind.
This is why Spinoza insisted that God could not be a person with moods, whims, or shifting
desires.
To assign such traits to divinity was to degrade it to make the infinite small to transform
the eternal into a mirror of human rulers.
He believed that truth must be consistent, rational, unchanging like the laws of nature themselves.
Anything else he warned is not divine revelation but human projection.
And so from Genesis to Exodus the cracks deepen.
A God who regrets a God who changes his mind.
These are not the attributes of perfection, but the fingerprints of human authors.
And if these verses already unsettle the foundations of faith, the third will shatter them entirely.
For in it, God is not just emotional or uncertain.
He becomes the commander of unthinkable violence.
The third and most terrifying fracture is found in the book of Deuteronomy.
Here the text does not speak of regret or persuasion, but of extermination.
The verse commands,
But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.
You shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them.
Entire peoples, men, women, children, the elderly condemned not by human kings but by the supposed
will of God himself.
Spinoza saw in this passage the most damning evidence that the God of the Bible was not
divine perfection but a projection of human brutality.
A truly infinite and just being could never demand genocide, could never choose favorites
among nations, could never call for rivers of blood to sanctify his glory.
Such commands, Spinoza argued, reveal not the voice of heaven, but the ambitions of rulers
who cloaked their wars in divine authority.
History echoes with the consequences of verses like this.
Crusades waged with the cry of God wills it.
Colonizers claiming lands as divine inheritance.
It was justified as sacred duty.
Each time the Bible was opened, the words of extermination read aloud and blood was spilled
in the name of the Almighty.
But behind the horror stood men, kings, priests, generals using the mask of God to crown their
own ambitions.
This was the heart of Spinoza's critique.
If God is truly infinite, then he cannot hate.
If he is truly perfect, he cannot demand slaughter.
The moment a scripture orders mass destruction, it ceases to speak of God and begins to reveal
the flaws of its authors.
In Deuteronomy the mask slips entirely.
What we see is not divinity but tyranny, not eternal justice but the will of men who longed
for conquest and clothed their violence in sacred words.
With Deuteronomy's command to annihilate entire peoples, the mask of divinity is stripped away
and the political machinery behind the sacred text comes into view.
Spinoza understood that these were not divine decrees but strategies of power.
Religion, he argued, was never only about belief.
It was about governance, obedience, and control.
By presenting the will of kings as the will of God authority became unassailable.
To question a ruler was to defy heaven.
To resist injustice was to commit sin.
This fusion of politics and faith forged a system where obedience was enforced not merely
by soldiers but by conscience.
People learned to police themselves to feel guilt for rebellion to see doubt as betrayal.
In this way, sacred texts became instruments of domination, legitimizing wars of conquest,
sustaining social hierarchies, and silencing dissent.
When scripture declared genocide as holy oppression ceased to be political, it became sanctified,
untouchable, eternal.
For Spinoza, the danger of this construction was immense.
A God who demands bloodshed is not a God of truth but a tool of rulers who seek absolute
control.
And when fear becomes the foundation of faith, freedom withers.
The faithful trapped by the weight of divine commands no longer act from reason but from
terror.
They become subjects not of God but of those who claim to speak for Him.
It was here that Spinoza's vision cut through like a blade.
What contradicts reason, he declared, cannot come from God.
Violence, hatred, and arbitrary cruelty are marks of human invention not of divine necessity.
True divinity, if it exists, cannot be bound to the passions of men or the ambitions of
empires.
And so by exposing the political face of religion, Spinoza opened the door to a new understanding
of both freedom and faith.
After tearing away the veil of fear and political manipulation, Spinoza did not leave behind a
void.
Instead, he offered an alternative vision of God and spirituality, one that was as liberating
as it was revolutionary.
For him, God was not a ruler demanding obedience nor a jealous sovereign counting sins and punishments.
God was the totality of existence, the infinite substance that sustains every star, every tree,
every breath of air.
To encounter God was not to kneel before a throne but to open one's eyes to the order
of nature, to the logic and harmony woven into reality itself.
In this view, sacred rituals and mediators became unnecessary.
Temples, sacrifices, and endless rules were not bridges to God but barriers created by men.
The divine did not require offerings or constant praise.
It asked only for understanding.
To know the laws of nature, to study with clarity, to live with reason, this was the true worship.
And in this worship there was no fear, no guilt, no submission, only freedom.
Spinoza's God did not change his mind, did not rage, did not demand blood.
His God was eternal coherence, the structure of reality itself, indifferent to human whims,yet accessible to human reason.
Such a vision was dangerous precisely because it removed the power of priests and institutions.
If God is everywhere in everything, then no one holds exclusive access to him.
No one can demand obedience in his name.
This was not nihilism nor the destruction of faith.
It was faith purified faith without superstition, without chains, without political manipulation.
A faith rooted in knowledge, in the beauty of the world, in the understanding that by comprehending the universe we come closer to the divine.
And yet Spinoza also knew that such an idea would provoke fear for to accept it meant dismantling centuries of religious authority.
It meant facing the truth that God did not need our obedience, only our clarity.
But if Spinoza's God was so liberating, why did humanity cling so desperately to the old image of a wrathful emotional deity?
The answer Spinoza believed lay in our deepest weakness fear.
Human beings fear uncertainty more than they desire truth.
It is easier to obey than to think, easier to submit than to confront the vast unknown.
Religion with its threats of punishment and promises of reward became a shelter for that fear.
It offered certainty even if false, comfort even if chained.
Institutions understood this all too well.
By transforming doubt into guilt and rebellion into sin, they converted insecurity into obedience.
A believer afraid of divine wrath polices himself more strictly than any ruler could.
The system does not need constant armies.
It thrives on internalized fear.
That is why for centuries people defended doctrines that enslaved them because to abandon them felt like leaping into darkness.
Spinoza's message therefore was more than philosophical.
It was existentially terrifying.
He asked people to stand without the crutches of dogma to walk into the world guided only by reason and understanding.
True freedom, he argued, was not given by any institution.
It was our natural condition.
But to claim it required courage, the courage to live without fear.
This is why so many considered him dangerous.
To reject a God who punishes and rewards is to dismantle the power structures built upon him.
To embrace freedom is to strip away the authority of priests, kings, and institutions that thrive on obedience.
And yet for Spinoza, this was the only path worthy of the divine.
For what kind of God would desire slaves when he could instead invite us to know and to love the truth?
From these revelations emerged one of the most daring proposals of Spinoza's philosophy,
that the true path to salvation is not blind obedience, but understanding.
He urged humanity to replace superstition with knowledge, submission with freedom, guilt with clarity.
In a world ruled by dogmas that demanded loyalty above thought, this was nothing short of revolutionary.
Spinoza declared that no institution, no sacred text, and no priestly authority holds the monopoly
on truth.
Freedom is not something granted by churches or rulers.
It is inherent to human nature.
We are born with the capacity to think, to reason, to understand.
And in that very capacity lies our most direct connection to the divine.
To use our minds is not to stray from God, it is to approach Him.
The true danger Spinoza warned is not heresy, but ignorance.
A people who think for themselves cannot be enslaved.
But a people who live in fear, who see rebellion as sin and doubt as betrayal, will remain captives forever.
That is why his philosophy was feared by religious authorities.
He offered not only critique, but liberation.
He handed individuals the key to their own freedom, a freedom so profound that no institution could contain it.
And perhaps the most radical idea of all, you do not need permission to be free.
No bishop, no rabbi, no cleric can grant or deny your connection to the divine.
That power has always belonged to you, and to claim it is to step into the very heart of what Spinoza called, God the infinite, rational, and eternal order of existence itself.
What Spinoza destroyed was never spirituality itself, but its captivity under fear and power.
By dissecting the verses of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, he revealed that the biblical image of God, repentant, temperamental, and even genocidal, was not a reflection of eternity,but of humanity's own flaws and ambitions.
What he offered in return was not emptiness, but a richer faith, a God identical with nature,
unchanging, infinite beyond anger or favoritism, accessible through knowledge and reason.
This vision remains as dangerous today as it was in the 17th century.
For if God requires no intermediaries, then institutions lose their authority.
If divinity is found in reason, and the natural order, then sacred texts lose their monopoly over truth.
And if freedom comes from understanding, then no power on earth can demand your obedience in God's name.
That is why Spinoza was exiled, cursed, and branded a heretic.
And yet centuries later his words still speak with clarity, challenging us to choose between fear and freedom between superstition and understanding.
So I ask you now, has religion brought you closer to God, or has it taken you further from your own ability to think freely?
Your answer matters, because here we are not searching for a new faith, but for a new kind of freedom, the freedom that comes from daring to think for ourselves.
together we will keep dismantling the illusions that have bound humanity for centuries.
And most importantly, leave your honest thoughts in the comments below because your voice is part of this search.What is at stake here is not belief, it is liberation.

Long Live DNA Sancho

 Adoption is an alien to African consciousness.
This Mande wanted to talk about what life has taught him
This Mande wanted to talk about  lessons in his life 
This Mande wanted to talk about  resume and so on.
But he ditched that. He said forget that.
He just wanted to talk about Sancho 
He just wanted to talk about Sancho legacy 
He just wanted to talk about  the meaning of that experience, individualism, materialism, trending family, kinship, community, family association, truth, documentation, opinion, published trash, which is abomination,
He just wanted to talk about  the real deal respecting the earliest known ancestors in the Americas.
Okay? So let him get into it about the research process and what has been revealed to him.
 All right. He asked very simple questions and obtained no answers from Sancho, and that's a shame.
Not a waste of time, a shame.
Those ought to be very thankful to the females of the Sancho people.
What a multitude. Sancho's scattered multitude they reproduce.
 It's an honor that it's time to honor the females.
He doesn't care for the attitude Sancho people show.
He does not, he cares about results.
Perhaps a Sancho is just a phone call away from realizing who they really are.
Perhaps a Sancho is perhaps just an email away from realizing who they really are.
And that's the focus he has, his family, Sancho family, and blessings ever very well.
May the Creator have mercy upon Sancho people and Long Live DNA Sancho.
Now, it is said that Bentick and Tuckness are brothers, but is that really so?
Who can state for fact that this is a reality, that that statement is absolutely true?
Researchers failed to bring that out.
 Is it  to be dismissed? but it's not just documentation that has been shown to be a reality.
Or documentation that has been accessed has not shown that to be a reality.
Now, there are some 11 years difference between those two males.
Tuckness was born in 1803, Bentick was born in 1814.
But what is certain is that they were not on the educational course.
Tuckness and Bentick  were not running up, running around defending or running up white cloths on flag poles in Essequebo. 
Tuckness and Bentick were not in Essequebo in 1834.
Perhaps Tuckness and Bentick never visited Essequebo .
 So, that trashy stuff put out there by Kenneth Joyce Robinson is ridiculous.
Tuckness and Bentick  were property of the Porter family at  Plantation Enmore  and at Plantation Paradise. 
Thomas Porter  (1748-1815) is the earliest known owner of the parents of Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho 
Were ancestors and collateral relatives enslaved of Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho at Porter family owned  plantations in Tobago, Saint Vincent, Barbados and Jamaica? 
Did Thomas Porter (1748-1815) bring the parents of Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho with him when he came to  Demerara from Tobago in 1782?
Whether their ancestors were brought by  Thomas Porter, from Tobago or whichever island, Barbados or St. Vincent, into Demerara is unknown.
Therefore, researchers  need to access Porter's writings to see if there was any mention of the ancestors of Tuckness and Bentick .
It's perhaps unlikely that such things would happen.
Well, Bentick being close to the Porter family, perhaps,  later on, somebody probably wrote.
Well, it is perhaps, perchance, that Tuckness and Bentick were married at St. Mark's Anglican Church.
If those events transpired there in the 1830s, 1820s, then one might be able to find, to locate or to access the names of the parents.
Are the parents of Tuckness and Bentick, the same individuals?
Who knows?
How do Ann Williams, Emily Christopher, Isabel Gordon, Adelaide Luke, Haile Sancho, John Alleyne Sancho,  George Downer Walter Sancho Swainson Christopher Joshua Sancho and Gail Williams  relate to Bentick Sancho? 
How does cousin Dove relate to Ann and Samuel Williams? 
This Sancho is obsessed with Sancho. However, none are asking about Sancho of his interest. It has been for a long while 
Do you know Leebert Sancho? 
Do you know Michael Sancho? 
How are you related to T, Anson Sancho? 
How are you related to Ignatius Sancho? 
This Sancho was asked  is there a more prominent Sancho than  T, Anson Sancho? He thinks that was  Rampersaud Tiwari.  Whoever  it is they did not appreciate the nine Sancho this Sancho offered above over and beyond T. Anson Sancho. 
Recently, in conversation with Muriel Sancho's first cousin, this Sancho could not understand the reason for a 90 years old or thereabout,  asking this Sancho about Jadon Sancho, and trying to tell him who Jadon Sancho is.  Although this Sancho said he is really interested in Sancho of the past - those alive 1803 - 1944 and particular;y those on the East Coast Demerara and Berbice and whether the relative recalls hearing of our relatives going to Panama, Suriname, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Dominica, Venezuela and Trinidad. 
I never want to discuss and/or make statements respecting Leebert Sancho, Michael Sancho, Brent Sancho, Iadon Sancho and others in the physical realm of existence.  I suggest those wanting to chat about those and other living people need to try with someone else.  
Why not go to the source themselves? 
Why ask this Sancho? 
He is not into gossiping assuming and romours.  This Sancho is trying to be more tolerant. However, being humble is not his way nor that of crocodiles, lions, cobra and secretary bird – his totems. You can’t be an authentic melanin dominant human without knowledge of your totems and clinging to ancestral consciousness of the ancient ones of creation. 
Stand firm  it is Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho and the immediate relatives who are the primary interest 
What are the names of their parents? 
What is the name of our people the parents of  Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho considered themselves? 
Are the parents of  Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho the earliest Sancho in Caribbean basin?
Are Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho siblings?  If the are siblings what are the names of their siblings? 
What siblings were birthed 1803-1814? 
What is the exact nature of their relationship? 
 How does Bristol Newport, Mary Hanover, of Adonis Seaforth and Frank Seaforth, George Timermay, Job Timermay  and John Achillis relate to  Bentick Sancho and Tuckness Sancho?
What are their dates of births, marriages and deaths? 
What are the names of the Sancho interred with Bentick and Mary Sancho  in the vault in the cemetery at Golden Grove?
How do you relate to Bentick Sancho?
 So, one later census or slave register showed a John Achilles, but not the Sancho name.
Now, one encounters John Sancho in Official Gazette of British Guiana in 1862 as the son of Bentick.
One must also state that a slave register showed, another Tuckness, but three years later, the name is not there.
 So, one thinks that Tuckness died very, very young, all right?
It seems that Bentick and Mary had at least six children.
Names are probably Gilbert, Charles, John, Lammy, Mary, and Emma, all right?
So, Tuckness had at least one daughter, and his wife, I think, was named Annette, or Ann, and what's her name? Anatonia, or whatever, how they pronounce that name?
Anastasia, or whatever that name is.
All right. I have problems with these European names.  It's very alien to me. I cannot relate to them.
 Now, truth is in DNA.
The DNA has the absolute truth of an individual, right?
The individual is a spirit, but the body that encases an individual, the DNA in that body is the absolute truth of that person's human experience, okay?
 So, individuals are one thing, but a kinship is made up of individuals.
 And the first society, the basis of the society is family.
Family is a mother, father, and offspring, children.
 And then, kinship is a group of families.
 Within the kinship, or within a family, and/or within a family, there could be people therein that doesn't have the DNA of the family.
 That's why when I write that, I say DNA circle or DNA so-and-so. That means I'm specifically addressing people who are biologically linked, right?
Some people.
Some people are adopting.
 Some people are given to the male as their child.
Well, when in fact, in reality, they are not that male's child, right?
Breaches happen. Breaches is part of human experience.
But there's no breach with me, you know?
Nobody ever discussed or said that I was in doubt.
I mean, realistically, they might have joked about it, talking about my, you know, don't want to be providing labor for whatever they were doing.
And they would say they don't see how I am one of them.
All right?
But there was no doubt about my mother's birthday either.
So, they're not bad about me.
There's no doubt about my mother.
I never heard any doubt about my grandfather.
If we are not who we said we are, it's a breach happened prior to my mother.
Okay?
Let's get that out of there.
 Now, I am not enthused by people who are not DNA relatives calling themselves our relatives.
I'm not enthused about that.
  You know, lions don't adopt.
 Simple as that.
When a lion moves into a pride, and the pride has cubs at a year old, the lions kill those cubs.
 All right?
 Lions don't have those strategies.
  And adoption is an alien concept to African consciousness.
 All right?
  So, I'm not with adopting, period.
 I almost broke that rule of thumb a couple of times, but it didn't work out so fine.
  All right.
  Truth and trash.
  In all the years I've been researching, I've never went anywhere and picked up anybody's medical records.
   The only medical records I have is two deaths records.
  One for my biological father and one for James Sancho, who died in April 1931.
  He's buried at Evergreen Cemetery there in Bushwick, Brooklyn, New York.
You can go check that online.
You can go check it with the city.
 I didn't see the need to go get his wife information on their syndicate.
 So, and I didn't look at that for the medical records.
 I get that to find out who he is.
  You know, what information was on there.
 All right?
  So, when scumbags go around digging up their relatives' information in hospitals, what are they else?
  What are they saying?
  They're saying they're demonic.
  They're saying they are dirty minded.
 They're evil minded.
They're filthy.
They have an emptiness within them that they would look on, go try to find someone else's business to gossip about, to spread rumors about, to talk about.
Such people I distance myself from.
 And when people come to me with this kind of information, I cut them off.
You are either for me or for me, my mother, my uncle, and their offspring, and my grandparents, or you're against us.
 It's as simple as that.
 And even if you have the DNA of us and you do those things, then you're in violation.
  And some people should be hung upside down and burnt with slow fire, but I'm not going to be the one to do that.
 But that's how I think about them.
 You know?
 But it's all right.
 I think the individual behavior is an abomination.
 But to actually take violence to that person, what makes you worse than that person.
 It's all good to vent, I would think, because you have to get it out of you.
 So, I would say this.
 I love those who I always loved.
 And I hate those who take any stand against me, my uncle, my uncle's children, my grandparents, and my great grandparents, and so on, and great-great-grandparents, and so on.
 Anything against my legacy, any behavior that is unbecoming is those people I keep away from, you know?
People who want to expose anyone's rascality is not somebody I appreciate.
Put it that way.
But not appreciating them, even hating them, does not mean I should hate those who brought them into being.
That's never happening, you know?
 It is not for me to violate my existence because of a behavior of somebody, of an individual or individuals.
So, I believe if your left hand, if your hand affects you or violates you, you cut it off.
Whatever piece affects you or violates you, you cut that off.
Right?
 You don't take off your head because you don't like your nose.
Okay?
 You don't take your teeth out because your teeth bites your tongue.
So, you're just trying to avoid the teeth bites of the tongue.
 All right?
 So, that's the point.
That's the point I need to get over.
Now, there's many, many people I missed.
 I don't want to get into that.
 But, for my generation, it will be Colin,  Colin, Bigman, Wickham, Errol,  Alwyn and Tunka are probably my ultimate favorites, Among the males.
And for the females, it would probably be Baby and Sonia, Dorothy, Dora, and so on like that.
But, I don't really know.
 I mean, Colin would be my all-time favorite here, I guess, in my generation.
And the next generation would probably be David, East to West, Matthews, so on like that.
Yes.
But I'm very, very disappointed that people don't talk about their relatives when I ask these questions.
 I'm not trying to get personal.
 I'm trying to paint, trying to get the picture right as accurately as humanly possible.
So, I'm very disappointed that people in Suriname, or attached to Suriname, have not been cooperative.
The people attached to Berbice have not been cooperative.
The people in Trinidad have not been cooperative.
The people in St. Vincent have not been cooperative.
 And I cannot find people in Dominica, or at Grenada.
I don't know if anybody survived here.
But they were encouraged into those areas, and Barbados.
 I don't know if those groups survived, and who, what names they are now, because the names seem to have disappeared.
And there are people in England who have not come forward.
I'm also very, very disappointed in those who have the Y chromosome, or should have the Y chromosome, that does not want to check their DNA against those people on the African continent, who would like to see, who would like to ascertain whether they and I, they and us, are relatives.
 And by so doing, we could actually pinpoint the area in which our people were, before they were, you know, trapped, captured, and cargoed into the Americas.
 Another disappointing thing, two other disappointing things that come to mind is that our people are trending.
 And they say, he was my father, he was my brother, he was my uncle, she was my mother, and this and that.
 The relationship is still the same, whether the person is here, or in the other, or in some other dimension, such as the land of ancestors, what you people call, what you unconscious dead people call dead.
You know, it's land of ancestors, when people transition, they go into another dimension.
 The body remains on earth, the spirit goes into another dimension.
And that's not my belief.
That's the reality.
Right?
The spirit returns to alien and amenaza, which is nature.
Okay? So let him get into it about the research process and what has been revealed to him.

All right. He asked very simple questions and obtained no answers from Sancho, and that's a shame.
Not a waste of time, a shame.
Those ought to be very thankful to the females of the Sancho people.
What a multitude.
Sancho's scattered multitude they reproduce.
It's an honor that it's time to honor the females.
He doesn't care for the attitude Sancho people show.
He does not, he cares about results.
Perhaps a Sancho is just a phone call away.
A Sancho is perhaps just an email away from realizing who they really are.
And that's the focus he has, his family, Sancho family, and blessings ever very well.
May the Creator have mercy upon Sancho people and long live Sancho.
Now, it is said that Bente can talk to some brothers, but is that really so?
Who can state for fact that this is a reality, that that statement is absolutely true?
Researchers failed to bring that out.
So, it's not to be dismissed, but it's just documentation has not shown that to be a reality.
Or documentation that has been accessed has not shown that to be a reality.
Now, there are some 11 years difference between those two males.
One born 1813, one born 1814.
But what is certain is that they were not on the educational course.
They were not running up, running around defending or running up white cloths on flat poles and edge cables.
They were not there in 1834.
They were never there.
So, that trashy stuff put out there by Kenneth Joyce Robinson is ridiculous.
They were property of the Porter family at Enmore on a plantation paradise.
Whether their ancestors were brought by Porter, I think Thomas Porter, from Tobago or whichever island, Barbadosaurus or St. Vincent, into Demerara is unknown.
So, one has not accessed Porter's writings to see if there was any mention of the ancestors of Nisam Kourmet.
It's perhaps unlikely that such things would happen.
Well, Benfic being close to them later on, somebody probably wrote.
Well, it is perhaps, perchance, that St. Vincent and Benfic were married at St. Mark's Anglican Church.
If those events transpired there in the 1830s, 1820s, then one might be able to find, to locate or to access the names of the parents.
Were they the same individuals?
Who knows?
Who knows?
All right.
But, one thing is certain.
When one sees the documentation, it's always St. Vincent, Benfic, Mary Hanover, and two sea forts are always there.
So, one later census or slave register showed a John Achilles, but not the Sancho name.
Now, one encounters John Sancho in official guidance in 1862 as the son of Mentec.
One must also state that a slave register showed, and not the toughness, but then three years later, the name was not there.
So, one thinks that person died very, very young, all right?
It seems that Mentec and Mary had at least six children.
Names are probably Gilbert, Charles, John, Lammy, Mary, and Emma, all right?
So, Tocnes had at least one daughter, and his wife, I think, was named Annette, or Ann, and what's her name?
Anatonia?
Anatonia, or whatever, how they pronounce that name?
Anastasia, or whatever that name is.
All right.
I have problems with these European names.
It's very alien to me.
I cannot relate to them.
Now, truth is in DNA.
The DNA has the absolute truth of an individual, right?
The individual is a spirit, but the body that encases an individual, the DNA in that body is the absolute truth of that person's human experience, okay?
So, individuals are one thing, but a kinship is made up of individuals.
And the first society, the basis of the society is family.
Family is a mother, father, and offspring, children.
And then, kinship is a group of families.
Within the kinship, or within a family, and or within a family, there could be people therein that doesn't have the DNA of the family.
That's why when I write that, I say DNA circle or DNA so-and-so.
That means I'm specifically addressing people who are biologically linked, right?
Some people.
Some people are adapting.
Some people are given to the male as their child.
Well, when in fact, in reality, they are not that male's child, right?
Breaches happen.
Breaches happen.
Breaches happen.
Breaches happen.
Breaches is part of human experience.
But there's no breach with me, you know?
Nobody ever discussed or said that I was in doubt.
I mean, realistically, they might have joked about it, talking about my, you know, don't want to be providing labor for whatever they were doing.
And they would say they don't see how I wanted them.
All right?
But there was no doubt about my mother's birthday either.
So, they're not bad about me.
There's no doubt about my mother.
I never heard any doubt about my grandfather.
If we are not who we said we are, it's a breach happened prior to my mother.
Okay?
Let's get that out of there.
Now, I am not enthused by people who are not DNA relatives calling themselves our relatives.
I'm not enthused about that.
You know, lions don't adopt.
Simple as that.
When a lion moves into a pride, and the pride has cubs at a year old, the lions kill those cubs.
All right?
Lions don't have those strategies.
And adoption is an alien concept to African consciousness.
All right?
So, I'm not with adopting, period.
I almost broke that rule of thumb a couple of times, but it didn't work out so fine.
All right.
Truth and trash.
In all the years I've been researching, I've never went anywhere and picked up anybody's medical records.
The only medical records I have is two deaths every kid.
One for my biological father and one for James, who died in April 1931.
He's buried at Evergreen Cemetery there in Bushwick, Brooklyn, New York.
You can go check that online.
You can go check it with the city.
I didn't see the need to go get his wife information on their syndicate.
So, and I didn't look at that for the medical records.
I get that to find out who he is.
You know, what information was on there.
All right?
So, when scumbags go around digging up their relatives' information in hospitals, what are they else?
What are they saying?
They're saying they're demonic.
They're saying they are dirty minded.
They're evil minded.
They're filthy.
They have an emptiness within them that they would look on, go try to find someone else's business to gossip about, to spread rumors about, to talk about.
Such people I distance myself from.
And when people come to me with this kind of information, I cut them off.
You are either for me or for me, my mother, my uncle, and their offspring, and my grandparents, or you're against us.
It's as simple as that.
And even if you have the DNA of us and you do those things, then you're in violation.
And some people should be hung upside down and burnt with slow fire, but I'm not going to be the one to do that.
But that's how I think about them.
You know?
But it's all right.
I think the individual behavior is an abomination.
But to actually take violence to that person, what makes you worse than that person.
It's all good to vent, I would think, because you have to get it out of you.
So, I would say this.
I love those who I always loved.
And I hate those who take any stand against me, my uncle, my uncle's children, my grandparents, and my great grandparents, and so on, and great-great-grandparents, and so on.
Anything against my legacy, any behavior that is unbecoming is those people I keep away from, you know?
People who want to expose anyone's rascality is not somebody I appreciate.
Put it that way.
But not appreciating them, even hating them, does not mean I should hate those who brought them into being.
That's never happening, you know?
It is not for me to violate my existence because of a behavior of somebody, of an individual or individuals.
So, I believe if your left hand, if your hand affects you or violates you, you cut it off.
Whatever piece affects you or violates you, you cut that off.
Right?
You don't take off your head because you don't like your nose.
Okay?
You don't take your teeth out because your teeth bites your tongue.
So, you're just trying to avoid the teeth bites of the tongue.
All right?
So, that's the point.
That's the point I need to get over.
Now, there's many, many people I missed.
I don't want to get into that.
But, for my generation, it will be Colin, a big man, probably, and Alwyn and Tonkar are probably my ultimate favorites.
Among the males.
And for the females, it would probably be Baby and Sonia, Dorothy, Dora, and so on like that.
But, I don't really know.
I mean, Colin would be my all-time favorite here, I guess, in my generation.
And the next generation would probably be David, East to West, Matthews, so on like that.
Yes.
But I'm very, very disappointed that people don't talk about their relatives when I ask these questions.
I'm not trying to get personal.
I'm trying to paint, trying to get the picture right as accurately as humanly possible.
So, I'm very disappointed that people in Suriname, or attached to Suriname, have not been cooperative.
The people attached to Burbys have not been cooperative.
The people in Trinidad have not been cooperative.
The people in St. Vincent have not been cooperative.
And I cannot find people in Dominica, or at Grenada.
I don't know if anybody survived here.
But they were encouraged into those areas, and Barbados.
I don't know if those groups survived, and who, what names they are now, because the names seem to have disappeared.
And there are people in England who have not come forward.
I'm also very, very disappointed in those who have the Y chromosome, or should have the Y chromosome, that does not want to check their DNA against those people on the African continent, who would like to see, who would like to ascertain whether they and I, they and us, are relatives.
And by so doing, we could actually pinpoint the area in which our people were, before they were, you know, trapped, captured, and cargoed into the Americas.
Another disappointing thing, two other disappointing things that come to mind is that our people are trending.
And they say, he was my father, he was my brother, he was my uncle, she was my mother, and this and that.
The relationship is still the same, whether the person is here, or in the other, or in some other dimension, such as the land of ancestors, what you people call, what you unconscious dead people call dead.
You know, it's land of ancestors, when people transition, they go into another dimension.
The body remains on earth, the spirit goes into another dimension.
And that's not my belief.
And that's not my belief.
That's the reality.
Right?
The spirit returns to alien and amenaza, which is nature.
And they're still here on earth, but in another direction, perhaps, you know, going into the black hole and all of that stuff that some people suggest.
Now, the other thing is that our people follow fashion.
You know, by most older folks who tell me that my mother and the sister after her and her elder sister had long hair.
None of them said that I need had long hair.
And this was natural hair, because the Indian of us and the white in us would give us that long hair.
All right?
Now, today, a lot of the females that I knew had shorter hair than me are supporting other people's hair.
I've never seen so many people, females in our family, showing long hair.
I think Dorothy is one, and my mother, and I can't think about anybody else, probably babies after I think had long hair.
But it was a handful of people.
Now, there's trending people walking along with other people's hair.
What messages are, what are you really teaching the future generations?
What are you teaching those children that comes out of your stomach?
You know, you're teaching them to be fake, to be hoaxed, to be hating themselves.
You're teaching them self-hatred.
Now, I like to teach them to be themselves, their ancestral selves.
You know, to move away from Christianity, to move away from Islam, to move away from religious and all man-made concepts, but to embrace the ancestral cultural traditions.
That's all I would really ask people, and that's all I would say to people.
No imaginary friends, no fictitious character can save you from anything.
No fictitious character can give you everlasting life.
It's all garbage.
It's all those things that were natural.
You know, you need to stop the nonsense.
You know, there was none of us being Christians prior to August 21, 1450.
You know, and I don't think anybody was Muslim before 641 A.D.
All right?
So we need to wake up.
We need to follow Nile traditions.
You know, matrilineal situations.
You know, we grasp onto European concepts and run with it, and those things are white people things and off-white, pseudo-white behavior.
You know, Zionist, Greco-Roman behavior.
It's not our thing.
We need to move away from that.
We need to distance ourselves from trending, popular culture, and all this nonsense.
People are walking around with torn clothing, and they think it's fashion ever.
I mean, the air should be, you know, people wear that kind of shit going to the farmland.
And why are you paying hundreds of dollars for that nonsense?
It's a torn garment.
European nonsense.
All right.
I'd like to see more, and if I die today, what would be my legacy?
I'm not really worried about that.
I would like people to remember me as someone who loves the kinship even more than his physical body, but I'm not in control of that.
I would like you to see me as a truth seeker, as a truth speaker, as someone whose weaknesses was just love for his people and his ancestors, particularly his ancestors and the prior generations of people.
But I cannot control what people think.
Those who have, who want to see me as a diseased person, a diseased body, a diseased mind, it's up to them.
But if you say I was materialistic, you're a damn liar.
If you said that my thought process is flawed, you're a damn liar.
If you say you knew me, you're a liar, because I don't know who I am.
I'm trying to find who I am, who I were, so I know who I am.
You know, perhaps not even meant to could tell me who I am.
So if you said you know me, something is wrong with your thinking, because I really don't know me.
Every day I'm learning something about me.
So to you to say you know me, that's not realistic.
Otherwise, in that, I'm good.
I'm just this route that people have not made better use of my experience, better use of my time.
I would have liked people to have given me information like dates of death, dates of marriage, dates of birth, so I could paint a proper picture.
But I also want to say that I'm disgusted when people say they are from this location and from that location, which is contrary to reality.
Because if you look like me, and you have similar physical characteristics, you could only come from one place.
And that place is called Africa, or known as Africa.
And so deeply millennial people looking like me comes from the Nile Valley experience.
When you say you're Guyanese, or Trinidadians, or American, or Canadians, or British, then you're really telling me that you have colonial mentality.
Something is wrong that you're under mental enslavement, or you're mentally challenged, or something of that nature.
So our people, people are always beyond, above, and over borders, geographic, natural, unnatural, or whatever.
So your people first.
Location does not necessarily.
Location, other than being a clock, in the human experience, it's worthless.
Okay?
So those are the things I'd like for people to stop this trending nonsense.
But Victoria Sancho, Buxton Sancho, Berbice Sancho, Suriname Sancho, it's all nonsense.
You are Sancho people.
Now, the last thing I found out the other day, is that some European scholars, that I accessed, some European scholars, saw the house of people, interpreted the house of people 
as H-A-U-S-A-N-K-O-E-N people.
Some call them F-H-O-N-K-O-E-N people.
And some say F-A-N-K-O-E-N people.
I think I'm right on all three.
I'm really speaking with my head without looking at the information.
I think the writer is Cross.
C-U-S-T Cust.
I think R-N Cust.
Something about Fulani Hauser thing.
And the book came on in 1903.
I'm just speaking out of my head.
So what I'm saying might not be totally accurate, but it's a summary, it's a gist of what I'm saying, of what I saw.
And so I don't know if that is reality.
I haven't got any feedback from any household scholar, preferably an African conscious household scholar, or scholars, to analyze the etymology or the linguistic value of what these Europeans are claiming.
Because one has to remember, Europeans go into other people's geography and give them names like Africa and Africans and Bantu and so on.
Because Bleak is the one who coined the name Bantu in 1857, or it's adapted in 1857.
And then Africanus was given to Africa after Africanus defeated Hannibal, the northern area, and then generally it is adapted for the whole continent.
So these words are European concepts.
These are not what black people call themselves.
So one has to be quite sure what these things are.
You call yourself Bantu, and then you're really paying homage to Bleak.
You call yourself Africanus or African, and you're giving honor to a conqueror, a person who conquered you.
So one has to be very clear.
It's like when you say I'm Guyanese, what does that mean?
You say that you were a slave, you were enslaved in a colony or colonial, out of your natural homeland, you know.
So where your ancestors, your ancestors were.
Because I don't think most Africans in Ghana have 10 generations of Africans in Ghana.
I can't think they probably, not one of you have 10 generations buried in Ghana.
So what the hell happened to those people before 1616?
The people who were at home, right, before 1616, is who you are.
You are not that which was on the plantation between 1616 to 2019.
That is the slavery curtain.
You need to look beyond the slavery curtain.
All right?
So when other people are acting in that fashion, I cannot identify with that.
I cannot identify with people who wants to call me a slave.
You know?
The given name is a slave name.
I never really want to hear that again.
You know?
So if you can't call by the name I chose for myself, just don't call me anything at all.
You know?
You could call me 579, because that's my family numbers.
You know?
You know?
Fifth son, seventh child, ninth member of the family.
You know?
Nearly everything is numerology.
You know?
You know?
But if you call me those slave names, and I don't respond, you know, you have been told.
So now you know.
It's starting to do with health concerns or anything like that.
You know?
Or wanted list or criminal activity or nothing.
They have nothing to do with that.
It has to do with consciousness.
I'm not a white man.
I'm not a European.
I should not have European names.
The only thing I should be able to do is speak European and dress like European.
That's it.
Nothing else.
Their cultural values does not apply to me.
Okay?
It shouldn't apply to you either.
Right?
I'm not selling myself like that.
All right.
So that's it in a nutshell.
I hope in 2020, those of you who have not participated in the process or those of you who have could
just rejoin and let's get it going.
I need to have, I need to see if I can publish this thing out, publish this book, finish writing
or documenting these texts, these information, and publish something after the summer here or during the summer.
I mean, it's going to be a lot of empty spaces.
It's going to be a lot of I don't know because I don't publish fake stuff.
I publish truth.
You know, I talk truth.
I speak truth.
I seek truth.
And if it's not documented, I don't care to mention it.
So, bye.
Have a great day.
Have a great new year.
I'm trying to weed myself off of Facebook.
It's a waste of time.
People are not listening to what I'm saying.
And they're not passing on the information to those who are not on Facebook.
Because I spoke to James Campbell, and he did not hear, Dr. Campbell, and he did not hear.
He was not introduced to all the stuff that I've been writing or some of the stuff that I've been writing
 because he's still talking about tree butters coming from England and all that stuff.
So, all those things are not making sense.
People are not passing on the information.
So, what's the use of me being there, you know, of having a profile there on Facebook?
 If you're not passing on information, then I'm wasting my damn time.
And so, I need to move on.
I need to get into the universities.
I need to get into the documentation because I don't have much time left in the physical.
The body is breaking down.
My manual has been tested since October 15th.
I don't know how much longer I could be here.
I'm hoping to be around until at least January 2028, but I have no say so in that.
So, it's an urgency now to get what I have put out there.
And it's not for a penny.
It's just so that you guys can, future generations can expound on it and seek the information and widen the scope of the material through documentation.
And that's what it is linking people in Suriname, Trinidad, Ghana, back to West Africa.
That's where my head is at.
And, you know, one has to have the original aims and meaning of the words of the names that we are given.
You can't be walking around with names and have no idea what those names mean.
Then what are you?
A hallowed person.
All right.
So, that's what it is.
And that's what I feel.
Probably see you, talk to you in the new year.
But I'm going to try to make statements rather than writing them out so people can hear the movement over again and you can just pass them on to people, to other relatives.
But that's what it is.
There's always enemies.
There are enemies everywhere.
There are enemies everywhere in family, in kinship, in association, in workplace.
Everywhere you're going to find enemies.
One has just had to make the best use of friends and enemies and move on.
Don't take them seriously.
Don’t take yourself too seriously.
Have laughter with yourself, vent, whatever.
But don't act out on those people who try to poison you, who violate you.
So, have a great 2020 and beyond.
And those of you who are trending, who are copycatting, needs to stop, needs to embrace African cultural traditions from the most ancient times.
And with that said, I bid you farewell and hope to link up with you and I hope a lot of you get involved and ask me questions and provide me with information and sources of information so we can paint an accurate or a picture that is as accurately as humanly possible.
With that said, I'll say, hotep, may Amen and Amen and Amenet, Ra, Rait, Maa and Maat be with thee all the days of their life going forward.
Highest blessings.
Peace.