Too many of us have not paid proper attention to the insidious nature of the propaganda against Minister Farrakhan and we who follow him. Nor have we looked at their ultimate aim, as we should. They intend our total extermination. Too many of us just don't think that people can be that wicked or hate us that much. Wrong.

Years ago, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad revealed the truth of the ultimate aim of those who are behind this non-stop attack, against Minister Farrakhan, and the Nation of Islam. This aim is also against anyone (or group) striving to uplift humanity, by whatever of God's truth they have.

This plan was first directed against the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and his followers, before 1975. They thought he died in 1975. Later, and before they knew it, in 1977, the Honorable Louis Farrakhan was up and raising the dead again to life, by the power of Allah and His Christ.

Most of God's enemies did not think that the Nation of Islam would ever come back. They underestimated Allah's power, wisdom and love for us. They misread Minister Farrakhan and especially that which God was wor king out through him. They judged by appearances and missed.

The speech recorded in the second chapter of Acts, by Peter, is a type, or sign of that which Minister Farrakhan would say in this time. Most scholars see this speech as a combination of several speeches Peter made in those days, not long after, as they claim, Jesus went to God. His speeches are like several speeches Minister Farrakhan made in the earlier stages of his work since 1977.

They are ever caught off guard. They continue to miscalculate the Minister's moves. Allah, with His Christ, guided Minister Farrakhan masterfully with wisdom that they cannot overcome. So before they knew it, the Nation of Islam was back!

Nevertheless, the wicked were relentless. They regrouped. Their minds are described in Revelation 16:9-11. At a certain point, they finally determined that they must get rid of Minister Farrakhan, then us and then original people forever. They intend this even if they have to kill millions of their people; perhaps themselves too.

As an illustration, see the website pertaining to Dr. Horowitz's book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola Nature," Accident or Intentional? and other evidence of this plan. That address is www.tetrahedron.org The wicked moved against the Minister and the Nation, time and again, as they did when the Honorable Elijah Muhammad was physically among us. Some of them have come to see that God, or some power, is with Minister Farrakhan, exercising greater power than they have.

The Holy Quran states that they planned a mighty plan. It includes using our weakness, including the anger of many against them. Pages 223-225 of "This Is The One" contains the full text of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad's article about their ultimate aim. He included their use of "the weak minded." This is in progress right now.

A sign of being "weak-minded" are those of us who slander others. Surahs 113 and 114 teaches that there are Black people who (from their envious state of being) whisper the evil contents of their hearts, into others, even as many jinn do. We have such people right in the Nation of Islam, who work against Allah's cause for satan even without pay! They do it for their love of this world's life. But Allah has a pay day for those of us who are like this.

Mr. Newfield has stated that he detests the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. He is a part of the universal conspiracy to destroy God's man and God's people. He wrote libel against Min. Farrakhan ,according to the wicked plan, which was in effect even before he grew up.

Point #6 (see last article) states that part of the circumstantial evidence proving the mental state of malice of the defendants are: "where there are indications that the publisher has a preconceived plan 'to get' the plaintiff." Our attorneys proved this beyond doubt. I'm only summing up a few aspects of their work.

There is a rise among the foolish, the shortsighted, the arrogant, the unspiritual and the outright wicked, to bring up the domestic life of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad in a way they hope will be a major factor in doing away with Minister Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Let us not forget for one moment, that at the root of the controversy of this case is opposing views of the domestic life of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. At the root of that is opposing views of the identities of Master Fard Muhammad, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and Black people in America. One is right. The other is wrong. One will win. The other will lose. One is of God. The other is of satan.

On page 226 of This Is The One I cited Minister Abdul Rahman's testimony that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that, if we can defend his domestic life we'll see the hereafter. What does this imply about the opposers?

To defend presupposes that we can explain. For the ultimate explanation we must go to the origin of his domestic life, God Himself. The arguments of Allah for what He ordered are perfect, best and can be understood by the spiritual; not the carnal. (Daniel 12:10)

All of this is related to what we read on page 22, of the brief, our attorneys wrote: "First, The FBI document Newfield refers to does not 'establish that Farrakhan was in the Newark temple,' in fact, it makes no reference whatsoever to Newark, New Jersey, or the mosque in Newark, or anyone traveling to Newark... . It makes reference to a person, whose name is deleted, 'seen driving off in his automobile' and suggests that someone else, whose name is also deleted, 'may be able to place' that person in 'New York City on February 21, 1965, if he was in fact in New York.' "

They continue: "Newfield's assertion that evidence establishing Minister Farrakhan s whereabouts came from FBI files is a deliberate falsification. Falsely identifying FBI files as the source of such information bolsters Newfield s efforts to connect Minister Farrakhan to the assassination by suggesting that Minister Farrakhan's presence in Newark was evidence of complicity in the murder. The innuendo leads the reader to conclude Newfield made a shocking discovery in the FBI s files, i.e., Minister Farrakhan was in the Newark Mosque on the day of Malcolm X s assassination. The false implication is that Minister Farrakhan kept this information hidden from the public until Newfield s discovery.

"Clearly-as Newfield admits right in the body of the defamatory article the Hayer affidavit would have no relevance to the story absent Newfield s false assertion that Minister Farrakhan was 'supposed to be in Boston' and his false assertion that 'the Newark mosque ... was allied with Farrakhan.' [Emphasis added].

"These terms impute further defamatory character to the rest of the Article. Use of the term 'supposed' suggests that Minister Farrakhan's activities on the day of the assassination were clandestine and suspicious, while the term 'allied,' in the context of the Article, is plainly designed to imply a merging of efforts between Malcolm X s assassins and Minister Farrakhan. Yet, respondents (My note: Newfield; The New York Post; etc.) tendered no evidentiary proof in admissible form to support these false assertions, as required by ... " and our attorneys then cite the relevant sources in the law to prove their (our) position.

The above paragraph continued over to page 23, where we read: "Without the false assertions woven into the discussion of the Hayer affidavit, the affidavit has no relevance whatsoever to the offending Article. Yet, the Hayer affidavit is cited by the lower court as a credible source for the Article:

"Newfield claims that at the time he wrote the Article, he also had in his possession a copy of the handwritten affidavit sworn to by Talmadge (sic) Hayer ('Hayer') one of the people convicted in the assassination. In his affidavit, Hayer lists the names of the four NOI members who he says conspired with him to kill Malcolm X. These men, Hayer claims, were all members of the Newark Mosque, to which Minister Farrakhan allegedly traveled on the day of the assassination."

Our attorneys continue: "In his own affidavit, Newfield states:

"At the time I wrote the Article, I also had in my possession a copy of the handwritten affidavit sworn to by Talmadge Hayer ('Hayer'), one of the people convicted in the assassination. Hayer wrote the affidavit in 1978 in an attempt to clear the names of the two other men convicted in the assassination. In his affidavit, Hayer lists the names of the four NOI members who he says conspired with him to kill Malcolm X. Those men Ben X Thomas, Leon X Davis, William X Bradley and Wilbur X were all members of theNewark Mosque, where Minister Farrakhan traveled at 1:30 a.m. the day of the assassination. I obtained a copy of the affidavit from William Kunstler, the attorney who had represented Hayer in seeking to clear the other two men. (Emphasis added)

"However, in opposing papers, plaintiffs submitted an affirmation from the late Attorney William Kunstler, who stated therein:

"... I understand that the affidavit which I obtained from Mr. Hayer has been submitted to the court by the defendants in this case in an effort to support their contention that plaintiff Farrakhan is guilty of complicity in the murder of Malcolm X. There is absolutely nothing in this affidavit which remotely implies that Minister Farrakhan had anything to do with the assassination and I do not believe, from my own investigation, that he had any information that Malcolm X was going to be murdered by Mr. Hayer and those whom he has named as his accomplices. During my numerous discussions with Mr. Hayer, he related the whole story to me, furnishing the names, descriptions, occupations and addresses of those accomplices. Nowhere, and at no time, did he mention any participation by Minister Farrakhan in the assassination." [Emphasis added].

The above paragraph went over to page 24, where Ministers/Attorneys Muhammad and Muhammad continued, in part:

"Since Newfield admits he obtained the Hayer affidavit directly from Attorney Kunstler ... , a jury could draw a reasonable inference that Newfield was aware of Kunstler s investigation and conclusions, giving rise to an obvious reason to doubt. If Newfield did not question Attorney Kunstler about the matter, a jury could conclude he had engaged in a purposeful avoidance of the truth."