Donald Trump Will Not Go To War With North Korea, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Despite the saber rattling by both the Trump administration and North Korea as of October 30, 2017, neither the Trump administration nor North Korea will start a conventional nor nuclear war. If a nuclear or conventional war does start, it is more likely that it would be triggered either by a human or technical error or caused by someone hacking a military computer to make it appear that one or the other nation has launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

I predict that there will not be an intentional hot war with North Korea because neither the United States nor its allies can afford the manpower expenditure. For South Korea, the economic loss would be staggering if they were to engage in a war with North Korea let alone a global war with both China and Russia.

Some experts believe that the Trump administration is on course for war with North Korea. But even though the corporate-owned mainstream media is profiting by fanning war flames to generate public expectation and collective fear that a total war with North Korea is imminent the opposite is, in fact, the case. There will not be a hot war requiring the use of millions of Amerian youth with North Korea nor Russia or China for that matter.

The Trump administration will not go to war with North Korea for several reasons. First, there will be no war with North Korea because it borders China and Russia. Neither Russia nor China will allow the United States to have military bases on their eastern borders. North Korea serves as a buffer for both China and Russia. Both the Russian and Chinese governments know that if the North Korean government is brought down, they would face the same kind U.S. sponsored military buildup on their eastern Asian border that Russia does on its western European border particularly in Ukraine.

Secondly, there will be no hot war with North Korea because if a hot war were to start, it would inevitably cause China and Russia to support North Korea against the United States and its ally South Korea as they did during the United Nations Korean war in the 1950s. In such a case, South Korea would be the big loser. South Korea’s very successful economy and its companies like Samsung, Hyundai, Kia Motors, Daewoo would be destroyed and its population virtually destroyed. Japan, too, would be a loser. It would lose its major technological industries like Sony, Toyota, and hundreds of others. That would end Japan as a global economic power. The only economic winners in such a scenario would be U.S. multinational corporations. But the cascade of negative consequences wouldn’t stop there.

There is yet another inevitable consequence which would ensue if the Trump administration is unwise enough to start a hot war with North Korea. Such a conflict would spread to a very socio-economically unstable Europe because Russia is also part of Europe. Furthermore, it would spread to what is left of West Asia, and eventually to India. Such a global war and the nuclear fallout which would result therefrom would literally bring about the end of human civilization as we have known it. Also, there are social and demographic underpinnings in the United States and both South Korea and Japan which would make a nuclear or global conventional war with North Korea suicidal.

 The United States Does Not Have Sufficient Biotic Potential for Either Global Conventional nor Nuclear War

First, let’s look at some demographic facts.  Let me define bio-potential. Bio-potential is a measure of a group’s relation to all environmental pressures against it. In short, we should ask the question: Is bio-potential greater than, equal to, or less than all environmental pressures against it? The measure of a group’s biotic potential is the first indicator as to whether a nation can afford to go to war. When considering war, there is only one rational choice out of the three possible relations that a group can have with environmental pressures against it. The choice for war would have to be at a time when the biotic potential is greater than the environmental pressures against it.

Along with other resources, wars cost human bodies; nations must pay that cost up front. Prior to monetary costs and industrial infrastructural stability and outputs in the form of war materials, there is the necessity for a nation to have a large healthy youthful population. I have two historical examples to support my claim. All empires that have arisen and fallen over the past 6,000 years were preceded by a population boom. They each had large healthy youthful populations and stable family infrastructures before their expansion. Prior to their rise, they each enjoyed high biotic potential in relation to low environmental resistance to their growth. Let me illustrate another historical example by referencing the Vietnam war.At the height of the Vietnam war, the United States fielded about 500,000 troops in Vietnam. The United States could afford such a human resource expenditure in Vietnam because of the baby boom generation. Between 1946 and 1964 between 65 and 70 million babies were born in the United States.  Within the first 4 years of the baby boom or between 1946 and 1950, 17,637,358 babies were born. Those babies all came of age for the draft by 1968.

My point is that the United States could have put up to and over 4,000,000 troops in Vietnam with no strain on its male human resources at home.  The United States’ industrial and economic power at that time was at its peak. The biotic potential for the United State to engage in global conventional warfare was in surplus more so than at any other time in its history. It will never enjoy such a human resource surplus again. 

A surplus of human resources in the United States does not now exist. Two major reasons for the loss of human surplus in the United States have been the use of birth control contraceptives since 1959 and abortion since 1972. Abortion alone has accounted for a loss of approximately 50,000,000 U.S. would be citizens between 1973 and 2017.  Half of those Boomer echo babies would have been male. The Baby Boom echo was silenced by law.

The Baby Boom generation, the largest and most nurtured youthful and healthy generation in U.S. history, has passed its prime years as has the United States. We should contrast the cohort of baby boomers born between 1946-1950 with those babies born between 1997 and 2000. Between 1946-1950 there were 17, 637, 358 babies born. Assuming half were male, there were about 8, 818, 679 males of age for the draft.  In contrast, there were approximately 15, 840, 678 babies born in the United States between 1997 and 2000. If we assume that half of those babies were male then there are about 7, 920, 339 of those babies who are now of age for military service in the event of a global war. That represents a difference of about 898,340 draft available males. 

Numerically, birth rate data today are misleading because that data suggests a moderately high biotic potential in relation to environmental resistance. However, environmental resistance to biotic potential in the U.S. is actually greater today. The numbers belie an important fact. Health conditions must be analyzed to demonstrate a qualitative difference between the Baby Boom generation and both the Millennial and Generation X generations. Both the millennial and generation X generations are plagued with both poor mental and physical health.

The Pentagon reported that millions of them are physically and mentally unfit for duty. On June 29, 2014, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command’s commanding general at the Pentagon reported that: “7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service … rapidly,” That is 70% percent of youth today that are unfit for military service. The United States is a nation which in 2016 experienced approximately 50,000 opioid overdose deaths many of whom are of those babies born between 1997 and 2000. There are millions of youth addicts in the United States ranging from alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and opioids. They cannot be rehabilitated; “once an addict always an addict”. Given the Pentagon report, that would reduce the number of available youthful males from 7, 920, 339 available men to about 2, 376, 101. That number would no doubt be less because history proves that the upper classes will always find ways to prevent their sons from going to war.

The indisputable fact is that the United States does not have the human resource capacity to wage a global nuclear or conventional war with North Korea let alone with both Russia and China. But there are other demographic reasons for that as well.

Fertility rates are also an indicator of a nation’s biotic potential to wage global war. Neither the United States nor any of its allies have a fertility rate at what the U.S. Census Bureau defines as the population replacement level of 2.1 babies per woman between the age of 15 and 45. The United States’ fertility rate as of 2016 was 1.8, South Korea’s fertility rate is 1.2, Japan’s fertility rate is 1.4 and North Korea’s fertility rate is estimated to have been .4% in 2009.  None of those nations have the biotic potential for a conventional or nuclear war with North Korea, China, and Russia. Both South Korea and Japan would be destroyed as  nations were a war to start.Given their low fertility rates there would be no possibility for those two nations to kick-start their economies again without a mass influx of immigrants who wouldn’t speak the Korean and Japanese languages and loans. That would cause mass cultural fragmentation in their respective nations and national debt. The United States would lose at least 2,000,000 men and women; that would be about the total manpower called up to serve in the armed forces in the event of global war. And in such a scenario, California and Hawaii would be lost to nuclear attacks costing the lives of millions of American citizens on the west coast of the United States.  

That would be too significant a loss of human resources for the United States and would result in a staggering monetary cost compounded by a national debt already at 20 trillion dollars. It would seal the end of the United States as a global power and a coherent nation. The United States would then have to withdraw its military bases from abroad to curtail civil chaos at home. For that reason, a decision by the Trump administration to move for a hot war with North Korea would be totally irrational. The only rational option for the Trump administration is political negotiation and peace. 

Russian leadership knows that another global war would lead to their destruction as a nation. Russia learned that lesson twice during World War I and II. For that reason, Russia will not start a war with the United States nor any other nation. It lost over 27 million people in World War II and it has yet to recover its greatly diminished biotic potential. Its fertility rate is now about 1.6 along with China which is riding on the downward tail end of a youthful population. Furthermore with a growing elderly population in China and the need to house and feed many more elderly citizens a war would be senseless. Therefore, China will not start a war with any nation either. But both Russia and China can finish a war with their nuclear arsenals despite the fact that it would spell their doom.

Not one of the nations I have mentioned can afford a war except for North Korea. Would engaging in a war with the United States and its allies be a rational decision for North Korea? Relatively speaking, yes, it would be a rational decision for them. Why? Because North Korea has nothing to lose and they know that a war would reshuffle the global power playing deck.

North Korea has had very little socio-economic pleasure for its people in over 100 years dating back to the Japanese invasion of their homeland in 1910 until 1945. Remember also that North Korea was bombed by the United States literally into the dirt 64 years ago during the Korean War. That is one reason North Korea will not negotiate with the Trump administration because they have nothing to lose. They know that they have the power to end it all. That makes North Korea more powerful than any other side in the present contest because the only long and short-term losers will be the United States and its allies because they have more to lose. And, if Russia and China engage in a global war on the side of North Korea, they would be losers as well because they too have more to lose.

 The Power Elite Want Wealth, Power, and Pleasure

One last indicator that supports my thesis that the Trump administration will not attack North Korea unless there is an accident is that the power elite enjoy pleasure. Currently, the United States and France are re-instituting direct physical colonial rule over west African nations. The U.S. and France or more accurately the global financial institutions which control both the U.S. and France are competing with China in Africa. Their interests in Africa is long term and for that reason gives their hand away regarding the contest with North Korea. War for global financial institutions is an anathema. 

Currently, under the U.S. African Command, the United States has hundreds of military bases throughout Africa. Military strikes are being carried out daily throughout Africa. Their targets are organizations which are challenging national debt slavery and corrupt neo-colonial plantation structures set up by Western European nations. This has occurred in the wake of African independence movements beginning after World War II.

Donald Trump in a recent speech bragged that his friends were getting rich in Africa and thanked West African leaders for making that possible. The major corporate powers do not want war with North Korea for that reason. It would weaken and possibly end their efforts to control resources in Africa, make money, enjoy their power, and perpetuate debt slavery in Africa.

A Tried and Failed Military Strategy

One last point. The military strategy which failed in Vietnam is to hire mercenaries, command the militaries of other governments with U.S. officers and by financially rewarding corrupt African leaders. The point is to allow foreign mercenaries to absorb the biotic, social, and cultural meltdowns. After all, most African nations have tremendous bio-potential for war in the form of the highest fertility rates in the world. However, it is a sign of American weakness not of strength. The flaw in that kind of reasoning is simple and proven historically. Most of the indigenous people hate the United States. Their ranks are filled with spies for the opposition and every move made by U.S. troops will be signaled in advance to opposition forces.The Roman Empire applied the same tactics when its biotic potential to wage war and man fortifications throughout its empire was depleted. Hadrian built a wall; it didn’t work. The Caesars hired mercenaries; it didn’t work. Near the end of the Western Rome Empire, one of their trained mercenaries, the Visigoth Alaric, sacked Rome in 410 A.D. With one hit, it was over. After that, the western Roman Empire was plucked like a fat chicken.

The United States, France, England, and Israel are all too willing to supply African governments with the military arms and equipment they need to keep them in chaos. And if African mercenaries or government troops fight to further the purpose of western multinational corporate and financial institutions the western European nations will reward them. But Africa is a big continent capable of swallowing up whole empires.

“Make America Great Again”

The Western Euro-American Empires are past their fighting prime and their currencies are crumbling fast. Like an old prize-fighter wearied and tattered but in a state of mental denial regarding his biotic potential to fight another round and imagining a time when everything worked for him; when he got it right more times than not. He yet enters the ring one more time ‘to be great again’ thinking in terms like Donald Trump’s slogan “Let’s Make America Great AGAIN.”

Implicit in that slogan, though, is the unadulterated truth. The truth is that he cannot fight another round let alone another fight; the U.S. empire is over. The sad fact is that everybody knows it but most U.S. citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Brutality: The Metaphysics of Violence, Kifon Emile, M.A.

“. . . the face presents itself, and demands justice.”

Emmanuel Levinas: Totality and Infinity, 294.

Human existence oscillates between rights and privilege brought to equilibrium through the auspices of the law. It is a right because it is natural; derived from the basic principle that animates life. It is a privilege because it is transcendental; resulting from that which man cannot completely [be]hold, apprehend nor grasp.

The right to exist emanates from its privilege which is transcendental. Because all humans benefit from the latter, it becomes a right by virtue of our indebtedness to the same transcendence which bestowed it upon us. In this light, the encounter with the other is usually either an encounter with one’s own other self or another transcendental manifestation of self [humanity] which commands reverence. Respect, therefore, is not a choice that humans offer another, it is a due that is paid to that transcendence seen in each person which reminds us of our own human[ity]ess. Or as the ethical philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas puts it: “The face opens the primordial discourse whose first word is an obligation.” (Totality and Infinity 201) Another expression for this obligation is the obligation to respect others because the face [other]  is a natural epiphany of relation “ . . . the face speaks to me and thereby invites me to a relation . . .” (ibid. 198).

The equality of all humans is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1945, in these terms: “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” A better formulation appeared 126 years prior in the form of the declaration of independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These edits underpin the supreme value of life which must not be transgressed in any way. In fact, the values of life, liberty, and happiness must be promoted, defended by all means possible. And for this reason, the institution of government [republic] is created to promote the well-being of everyone, as the aforementioned declaration specifies: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

A government, therefore, is instituted primarily for one reason: protect and promote the rights of the individual. In order to accomplish such task, it creates the police, a civil force unit, the protect citizens who are either in harm’s way or in danger from people of the underworld. As a living expression of the law, it reconciles natural rights and transcendental privileges.

Nonetheless, those entrusted with the duty to serve and protect have been the cause of pain for a fair number of persons: about 632 civilian deaths in 2014, 845 deaths in 2015, 183 in 2016. These deaths have often been an issue of concern for most citizens who question the use of force in the defense or elimination of life. While courts have often adjudicated in favor of police officers almost all the time, the public had remained skeptical in most cases and the gap of mistrust has progressively widened between the two.

At the heart of police, violence is the negation of existence, the refusal to acknowledge this basic principle of equality, transcendence, and respect. It is violence borne out of the desire to deny the other’s right to live, to be free, to be happy; the basic right to have a face and consequently be doomed to perpetual silence. It is denial because it confiscates rights [sef-defense?] to oneself while the others’ rights become a privilege resulting from the tolerance of the former. Here, humanity has been betrayed: “we belong to humanity, but humanity doesn’t belong to us.” This is not a structural violence per se, it is a metaphysical violence, arrogance, and brutality where absolute rights become discretionary for those who have stripped them from having a face, a say, a life. Such victims are humans only to the extent to which their human/state counterparts permit, or they’d have to purchase their way up to humanity through a perpetual surrender of will and free-will, which in most cases does not guarantee safety and the obligation of respect.  The conjugation of this brutality is always packaged in a subtle form historically known to mask its outright spitefulness.

The Criminalization of Tolerance

The criminalization of the concept of tolerance seems to originate from the definition both from dictionaries as well as from popular usage. The Cambridge dictionary defines it as a “:…willingness to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own even if you disagree or disapprove of them.” Even though this statement surmises reasonably the idea of tolerance, it insinuates some incoherence which should be outlined.

Firstly, it is based on the assumption that people have jurisdiction to agree or disagree with the behavior and beliefs of others even when the latter is not their children, spouse, student or a relation of necessary dependence. The idea of agreeing and disagreeing with others is part of social etiquette and not a duty that some people have to exercise on others.

Secondly, even when the possibility of evaluating or agreeing with the behaviors and beliefs of others, it is always based on the individual’s perspective instead of what is objective or what the law prescribes. In this sense, tolerance becomes another form of abuse of common sense and disregard of the law. For example, if the law requires citizens of every race and ethnic group to sit in a bus, then your acceptance of the way another person sits is not a sign of tolerance since the law already permitted it. A further permission [agreeing] from another person only shows respite for the law which commands everyone. Lastly, society is so diverse and complex that our desire to agree or disagree with their beliefs and behavior is only vain and vile.

Therefore, “tolerance is not the permission that we give to others to exercise their rightful freedom. It is the acceptance that the exercise of the rightful freedom of others is not a privilege of our permission.” (UWC 197). By refusing to claim any jurisdiction of judgment and by admitting the complexity of society which is beyond our sway of wishes, we begin to reach an understanding of tolerance.

The use of violence, often without the exhaustion of all means of communication demonstrate no sign of tolerance: victims are deprived of speaking, having a voice, being different, acting and thinking different. And when thinking/acting differently goes on safely, it becomes not a victory for the rule of law but for the cop for glorifies himself for being nothing more than what he ought to be. Or are we missing the point?

The Suspension of Protocol

Respect is not an option of life, it is the nature of life, in its social sense. Evolutionarily, it is the survival of the fittest. In the social setting, norms, taboos, and laws necessarily guide human actions, so too is the police force. These norms become incorporated into the daily lives of humans thereby becoming a form of etiquette or protocol.

The interaction of police and civilians is a normal interaction as are all others with the exception that one party is a representative of the State, at least formally. But for some reason, they assume the right to suspend protocol during interactions when they find it convenient. In numerous circumstances when the use of force is questionable, any individual would agree that there had always been possibilities of dialogue. But regrettably, within seconds of interactions, some officers judge it fit to pull the trigger knowing that a citizen’s life would be endangered. Argument: self-defense. The use of force for self-defense is mainly justified against necessary, proportional aggression. Running from a cop, pulling an ID or talking disrespectfully to a cop does not necessarily threaten his life.

In numerous circumstances when the use of force is questionable, any individual would agree that there had always been possibilities of dialogue. But regrettably, within seconds of interactions, some officers judge it fit to pull the trigger knowing that a citizen’s life would be endangered. Argument: self-defense. The use of force for self-defense is mainly justified against necessary, proportional aggression. Running from a cop, pulling an ID or talking disrespectfully to a cop does not necessarily threaten his life.

Suspension of protocol or the refusal to communicate indirectly means putting another’s life on suspension till the cop decide his fate. That transitory life, always in suspension through such interactions reflects neglect of the other’s existence. For, no person’s existence should be suspended or threatened by a wall of protocol for the simple reason that every person has a right to exist, differently, weirdly, strangely, angrily. But let it exist. The role of the police of to follow protocol and help others follow, but in no circumstance, risk their lives for not doing exactly so.

The Instrumentalization of Legality

From the old legal model: guilty until found innocent, society went onto innocent until proven guilty in modern societies. The process of law requires that only those found guilty shall be sanctioned through restitutive and punitive measures. As for the latter, the death penalty is reserved mainly for offenses which have caused evident and permanent harm to individuals on a great scale.

Nonetheless, people still die and suffer casualties of various sorts without being charged with any offense simply because of a [subjective] perception construed not necessarily through the instant interaction but through years and decades of criminal construction of prototypes of danger.

But the greatest danger is when the law is instrumentalized to serve only itself and its board members. The use of violence becomes legal at all times while the possibility to defend – declare your innocence becomes a privilege, which some will never have. This abuse of the law, under the pretext of strengthening the – rule of – law, kills the law as well as its citizens who are the very first beneficiary. From a liberal perspective, the laws are made to protect the people while from a Republican perspective, it is made to protect the State. Semantic jargon once more. Res publica, currently transcribed as the republic mainly refers to the stronghold of the public, the people.

And when social uproar questions such use of force, through the force indictment of a given cop, almost all the time the cop is found not guilty. Throughout the United States, these courts have remained consistent in its defense of cops who kills its citizens. This is a real danger to the citizenry.

Brutalization of Civility

Civility has not always been civil. Or, civility is not always civilized. Brutality evidently emerges to strip it from every significant progress, making it digress into primitive brutality cosmetically termed the legitimate use of force or what we may rightfully call the brutalization of civility.

Civilizations are often built on what is not civilized: war, enslavement, and exploitation. These uncivilized models have been incorporated into modern State as legitimate violence. But the line between legitimate and illegitimate is always difficult to establish. For most people, once the State is involved, it becomes acceptable. Gordon was a runaway slave in 1983 from Mississippi made famous by the scares on his back which he received as punishment from his masters.

The heinous nature of slavery could be seen in one picture and this was legitimate violence to the slave owners. Even though the image of his scares was used to make a propaganda against the slavery, it is easily forgotten that current police brutality inscribes into this same logic of violence where lives are lost. Yet, no propaganda is made to end such violence. On the contrary, those who advocate for respect and limited use of deadly force are being attacked and despised.

Gordon was publicly beaten to send a message to all the slaves on how they should be obedient. So too, police brutality, using some as scapegoats, is a form of sending a signal to the public to be law abiding.

But the enforcement of civility through utter brutality and use of ultimate force only destroys the very foundation of peace and a civilized society. And the main reason why such destruction delays peace is because of the victims are for the most part the subordinate ones and are already despised by the society they helped to build over the centuries.

If human life/existence is worth it, then it is worth it even when it is weird, silent, angry, non-compliant, different. Let it be life unless there are evident and convincing facts that life is in imminent danger. However, this seems to be far from reach, as of now, because the business of insecurity is really profitable.

Commercialization of Insecurity

The story of all societies is always that of ‘us’ against ‘them’, a ‘fabricated right’ against an ‘unconfirmed wrong’, the ‘abiding and understanding us’ against the ‘lawless and ignorant’ they etc. In this pattern, natural fault lines occur which, even the unity of the State find it hard to bridge: ethnic fault lines, color, income, accent, language, and religion etc. Safety is sought by staying within one’s natural boundaries or succumb to other’s arbitrary schemes of elimination.

Between each group lies suspicion which creates insecurity, often exploited by public actors as a marketing tool to buy power, influence, sell more arms and make more laws in favor of a given interest group.

State officials function with the same mindsets and work hard sometimes to enforce these boundaries. The encounter with others is always based on suspicion, thereby breaking the principle of people being innocent before being found guilty. Such suspicions increase when the other is different: color, accent, weird actions. These alone are enough for an officer to pull the trigger, claim self-defense and be backed by his judges. In fact, the only threat that he faced was the fact that he was out of his comfort zone, meeting someone who is not like him, doesn’t talk and act like him, or his kind. For that reason, he is suspicious and a threat to life.

This state of affairs is profitable for society as well as its board members who enjoy status quo privileges, dread dialogue, and unity. The demagogy on unity is usually a façade to make a good name while putting in no effort to make change happen.

It is understandable to teach humans how to love and respect animals, plants, and other gadgets. But if humans have to be taught over thousands of years on how to respect fellow humans or for hundreds of years in a civilized society, then it appears someone is being played.

The Rule of Violence: or The Economy of Violence

Police brutality in America has always been addressed in many ways. To some, citizens must learn how to obey cops literally while to others, cops must limit the use of force and there must be some changes in laws. All these options are reasonable but they do not address the main issue of the crises: a despise for human life, of the other’s existence.

The glorification of the use of violence in the American society goes as far back as the origin of the nation. Our historical origin is known to sanctify violence used against other races. It would be naïve to believe that such a history is over. Police brutality is only part of the relics of a shameful past which refuse to completely shed and shred its old skin – racism.

And until this history of shame is addressed, seeing the other as a necessary life and not a transitory lingering figure whose existence depends on his ability to be perfect by the law, then we would have to argue for many more decades, if not centuries.

 

CAMEROON: AN ANATOMY OF DISGRACE, by Kifon Emile, M.A.

“Revolution is always verbose.”

Leon Trotsky

The Stockholm Syndrome – where the victim is led to sympathize with his captor, is a reality that appears to be more common than imagined. A syndrome, clinically, is a pathos where presumably the gavel of a political analyst should be irrelevant. But the current tensions in Cameroon unveil not just a social and political unrest, but also a psychological and psychiatric malaise at a national scale, where the appropriate diagnostic operator becomes a clinical practitioner vested to restore the once peaceful society into normality and sanity whose soul has been destroyed through lack of knowledge, love for suffering, passion for disorder, tolerance of mediocrity, and confusion.

In September 2016, the English-speaking part of Cameroon which constitutes about 20% of the total population expressed dissatisfaction with the way the central administration [Yaoundé] had been conducting changes in the region, from educational system, execution of the law to investment in infrastructure. This was expressed through protests and strike – like what should be expected in a young democracy where the listening faculty of leaders is either nonexistent or incapacitated.

Historically, the origin of this discontentment is as old as the days of independence in1960, when the British colonial territory was made a trustee territory of the United Nations. In 1961, during a plebiscite on 11th February 1961 on whether to join Nigeria or Cameroon, the English Cameroon opted to join the Republic of Cameroon, as a federal State, with its prime Minister John Njuh Foncha, in opposition to Nigerian which they deemed were demeaning, aggressive and violent. Northern Cameroon become part of Nigeria on 1st June, 1961 while southern Cameroon joined French Cameroon on October 1st of the same year.

 In 1991, the constitution was modified into a unified State. It stripped the English part from any control of its resources, government, and administration. It is believed that highly centralized governments in Africa are patterned on the French model to obey religiously  their European metropole – France. In line with this, the discovery of the Bakassi peninsula oil rich zone in early 80s – which caused years of tension between Cameroon and Nigeria, had been another reason why the Cameroon government, admittedly guided by France, pushed to a unitary State in order to keep firm control of the oil rich region: as they have always done with African resources in colonies where they have any influence.

 Culturally, the English-speaking region practices the common-law contrary to the region which practices French civil law. In a centralized administration marked by flagrant discrimination and nepotism, judges are appointed from the French zone who have little or no knowledge of the common law.  Their execution of the law contradicts the legal practice of the region and consequently puts lawyers in disarray. Educationally, Southern Cameroon cherishes its English heritage: its authors and academic approaches are contrary to the French Cameroon whose francocentric model had been fast declining over the years. And economically, the region suffers from complete neglect given it has no industrial infrastructure, one public university, Buea in 1992, recently Bamenda in 2012, and limited access to opportunities which are all concentrated in the capital, Yaoundé.

Besides the fact that Cameroon is a perfect example of a mismanaged country ranking 146/176, on a score of 26/100 according to Transparency International. It is fueled by tribalism, dictatorship, and systemic unequal distribution of resources in general. The level of such injustice varies from one region to another and of course, interpreted from different perspectives, is all caused by one problem – incompetent governance. In the case of Southern Cameroon, which is already marginalized and poorly constructed as all other parts of the nation, it equally suffers from cultural, legal, and educational castration from the Cameroon government. That is why the strike, generally misunderstood by Cameroonians of the East who are equally poor and discriminated against, has failed to gain any sympathy from those of that region.

 A strike must not be rational in nature but its control should be. The more rational a strike is, the less passionate the strike; not because it is devoid of passion but because rationality is predisposed to compromise and thus outweighs the passionate demand for absolute parity.

Starting with the lawyers who couldn’t take it anymore, October 2016, the teachers whose discontent had accelerated over the decades followed and combined with that of the public. The boycott of schools and administrative as well as business activities was operationalized as part of a common strategy. The solidarity of the citizens of this region met with lawyers and teachers in defense of common sense and commonwealth. They were challenged with unbridled violence or repression from the government. Indeed, the state’s main tool of dialogue so characteristic of a declining dictatorship and a threatened civil service workforce was the use of state police power.

Government controls all aspects of the media. Television. Radio. Newspapers. Censorship prohibits any media that criticizes the government. People are not allowed to protest and any that do are terrorized by secret police. People that oppose the government are arrested and sent to labor camps or killed.

RESPONSE OF THE POLITICAL PHYLUM

The first reaction of the government was to send military personnel whose training should be put to question with regards to the way they treated their fellow citizens. In about 7 months, 6 people have been killed and not less than 800 detained without even reasonable suspicion being cited to justify their detention. And to add insult to injury, none of them were granted due process of law.

A few days into the strike, the military and BIR ‘Battalion d’Intervention Rapide or Rapid Intervention Squad’ were sent to the region. The first military known for its brutality and the latter known for its cruelty though both had one thing in common, ruthlessness. Their actions were characterized by complete suspension of constitutional rights. The BIR is known to have a more robust training. It stands as a paramilitary team and operates under direct control from of the presidency. In fact, it was created in 2001 as a special Unit to protect the president after a failed coup d’Etat on 7th April 1984.

Using the military as a first response mechanism only confirms what the revered political scientist, Mathias Eric Owana had described. He described the state as a military regime disguised in civilian clothing. Intimidation, negligence and cruelty against its own citizens are its primary characteristics. The rational and decision making element of the state and the police and gendarmeries have assumed indistinguishable roles. And over time what always happens is that the decision-making element of the state becomes a decaying institutional relic and the scares which crisscross the body of our nation. Now the rule of law officiates its own requiem. 

Political structures are known to dialectically oscillate between opposing class struggle. More precisely, Cameroon’s rulers constitute a phylum, i.e., a category above class whose are privileged, corrupt, cruel, deaf, blind, and un-empathetic and who stand firm on all institutional bodies to even better cripple the nation.

The phylum, constituted by its pontiff, Paul Biya and his stooges like Issa Tchiroma, communications minister, and Jacques Fame Ndongo, education minister, participate in creating the upper political class and the lower class. They are an inaccessible and unavailable in their opaque halls; an ironic contradiction to the nation that they are presumed to serve but only flush the air with meaningless pantomime.

Joseph Wirba, a parliamentarian from southern Cameroon, has expressed his concern to Jacques Fame Ndongo on the sibject.  His best response was: “What are you guys going to do?”  Issa Tchiroma, a former opposition leader turned apologist for the president after recapturing the post of communication minister said: “There is no place for federation or independence.” While Paul Atanga Nji, minister for special duties at the presidency had declared: “There is no systemic discrimination against Anglophones”.

Even though the president had been silent, governing through silence as he has always done in the past three decades, he had offered a pathetic 2 million dollars to private and confessional schools in the regions. Little hugs never work after many years of domestic violence. He shut down the internet on January-April 2017; he imprisoned lawyers like  Barista Fon, Dr. Nkongho Felix Falla Agbor (esq) and Dr. Fontem Neba, while many others fled for their lives. Then he failed a whole generation of youth when he mandated students to sit for the GCE test knowing that they had not attended classes during that school year.  All constitute the actions of a trap setter not a leader and benefactor of the people. And with his newly discovered vocabulary of terrorism, he has not failed to charge his own citizens of such crime while neglecting Boko Haram in the North.

A NATIONAL MALAISE: POLITICS OF DISGACE

In a country where poverty is at a 48% level (Human Development Index, 2011). Where a pregnant woman dies laboring in front of a hospital with no assistance. Where a reckless train collapses and kills 55 citizens, 300 injured in 2016 and no one is held accountable. Furthermore, where the president rules ad vitam and at present for 35 years. Where journalists are harassed and killed.  One would expect that if a given group goes on strike in order to request a better management of public affairs, that would sound like the most laudable act of courage to be praised. No, not in Cameroon.

In fact, Cameroonian citizens who accomodate French colonial policies are shocked, surprised and wonder “why do others complain?” As if they were about to say: “Look, this is a beautiful country, fair, loving, just with good leaders who care for your good. Why on earth would you revolt against them?”

Historically, this type of ignorance is not new. When the people of France revolted against king Louise XVI for unbearable living conditions, the queen, Marie Antionette, also known as Madame Deficit, was shocked why the people had to complain to her for bread: “They should eat cake” she answered. A response that led to her beheading in Oct. 16th, 1793. The only difference with France is that the French all knew that they were oppressed and daily mistreated. That is of course except for their queen perhaps for good reasons because she lived in great conditions. But the Cameroonian public suffers in general, yet they claim the same ignorance as that of the aforementioned queen.

With the current surprise of most Cameroonians, it is sad that one must explain why the living conditions are not favorable, why the opportunities are limited and why it is important to preserve the diversity of a country which takes pride in saying it is the miniature of Africa. It is a surprise that ministers as well as citizens all ask the same question: “why are the Anglophones complaining? But we all suffer, right?” Or the misconstrued idea that the main issue is that of language, or again pointing at the prime minister as an Anglophone to be a sign that English speaking citizens are treated well.  Another way of claiming as with the election of Barak Obama that his election proves racism has ended.

No doubt, the Stockholm syndrome seems to take effect here more inherently than one would imagine. After being accustomed to disgrace, dictatorship, perpetual rule, corruption, and nepotism, it has almost become normalized. The call for change or improvement becomes the real threat while those who have destroyed the country gain sympathy, love, compassion and protection from the people they’ve crushed over the years.

Progress within a social context with such a pervasive mindset is not only difficult but also highly unlikely. Maybe Cameroonians have not suffered enough to know that it is time to rise and challenge the status quo against all odds.

DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES: NO FUTURE IN CALIFORNIA, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Whether we consciously acknowledge it or not, we are necessarily confronted everyday with certain unavoidable natural, economic, and political realities. For example, our need for food, for water, and for shelter; our need to be born healthy and into a family which provides us with a stable and structured material, emotional, and intellectual environment as well as our need to form meaningful relationships with those around us. Those conditions are all as natural as gravity. But barriers exist which challenge our ability to acquire those necessities. Some are natural and others are socially constructed. Our task is to overcome the ever present challenges to our existence.

A significant privation of any one of those conditions can retard our social development. If privations are severe enough, they can cause us to die prematurely before having ever had the opportunity to reach our highest stage of personal development. At its worst, significant social privations can dehumanize whole groups of people over time. We all want to avoid privation of the good things in life. We want what we think is good. But despite our best efforts we usually fall short at attaining what we believe to be good. That underscores another fact.

The fact is we are not always in conscious control of our situation. There are rational explanations for that fact but it is also because running parallel to what we consciously try to determine for ourselves are hidden irrational forces altering the designed outcome of our conscious choices. Those hidden irrational forces are like tiny metallic specks in the corners of a pair of dice making them roll off the course we design.

Inclosing the conscious sphere of our individual and collective lives is an even deeper natural reality. That reality is an unconscious yet very natural force. The unconscious is by weight a more powerful force than our rational efforts to design the best possible life for ourselves. That is so even though it’s awesome power is never fully discerned by us on our narrowly defined stage of personal drama.

Our personal drama blinds us to the existence of the unconscious forces moving us. Over a vast number of years, some of us may turn and look back, intuitively, if not visually. At that time, we experience a sweeping comprehension of the varied unconscious effects of the unseen on our lives, or the lives of those around us, and the very world we perceive. For as we examine our past at that time we may see with both hindsight and insight an altered landscape as well as an altered mindscape.

We comprehend them both reshaped around us as well as in us. We might then say: things have changed and are changing beyond my power to stop or control the incessant re-combinations and permutations of things around us. Yes, a face seen in a mirror at 20 years of age one day has a reality check and sees itself in the same mirror at 80 years of age and realizes it has been running a gauntlet of nuanced types of very physical opposition.

That unconscious force which loads the dice against us governs the ebb and flow of whole populations of creatures, big and small, across the globe. On land and under oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams. There are few remedies to its onslaught.

Darwin called it natural selection, adaptation, mutation, and gene flow. Here, there is no escaping it.  We live by and in natural selection and we are subjects to that all powerful process of change. That change extends to social selection by conflict and competition. 

With a broadened vision, some of us eventually come to comprehend that we are adrift and continually carried away as chemical film is carried on the surface of a body of water by deep and powerful undercurrents. To where in the world, we don’t know.

In time, maybe, some of us come to comprehend that we move with the ebb and flow of a great mass of human flesh. We can even feel it driving us through a wide biological undercurrent into ever shifting relational combinations.

We are tossed and turned in our lives by that unseen force. Our entering into and exiting varied personal drama is evidence of the unconscious as are the unpredictable outcomes which build up the social structures around our lives.

We know that there was no logical order to our coming to exist in the world; logical order was not nor could ever unravel the infinitely complex ever changing combination of things that bore us into a place to live out our lives. We are thrown about and where we land we are forced of necessity to just cope or if not, to die sooner than later.

We are in the world much more in the hand of blind chance than we are in the hand of conscious determination. We can be in such denial about our captivity. We blame ourselves for our captivity. Actually, we don’t have significant power. It is not always our mistakes that foil our best efforts to rise above the muck and mud, rather it is that unseen natural force which courses along its way against our own.  

But that makes conscious self-determination even more precious to us; for it is the most unique characteristic among all life forms on earth. The bouquet was thrown and we caught it; we have it. For it is conscious self-determination which can raise us above the absolute unpredictable roll of the unconscious and give to us a slice of reason coupled with action to buffer us against its shocks. Take for example reproduction. The reproduction of another human being is a free choice exercised by us to make another human creature or not.

The reproduction of offspring is contingent on many conditions.  Assuming those many conditions are adequately met, the reproduction of offspring is like spring water flowing down from a high mountain top. From that flowing spring water, entire communities draw as would a thirsty man or woman draw from a well on a hot summer day.

By it, a population, from a bird’s eye view, not spanning minutes, hours, and days but rather a view spanned over decades and centuries at a sweep would stand out as one living organism connected by a thread of DNA stretching back countless billions of years.

We would stand out literally as a transparent gooey chemical process among others in the atmosphere, but graced with a mysteriously endowed high intelligence. Intelligently, we can and do replenish ourselves and in so doing awaken at the dawn of every new generation a renewed people ready to struggle again.

But let’s assume the opposite. What if the many contingent conditions for biological reproduction are not adequately met? Under such conditions, what should we expect? 

What does science say? For science and the methodology of science is to our understanding what sensation is to our body. Zoological experts say that the fitness of any individual or population is measured by the number of its offspring that survive to sire their own offspring and through which its unique genetic codes and culture are passed through the unconscious undercurrent from one generation to the next.[1] What relevance does that have to descendants of slaves in California? My answer is that Descendants of Slaves have no meaningful place within any social sphere in the state of California. Let me tell you why that is my thesis.

No Demographic Growth for Descendants of Slaves

I recently read a study published by the California Department of Finance which predicts statistically that there will be a significant decline in the population of descendants of slaves in California. It predicted a full 2 percent drop, from 7.3 percent in 1980 to 5.3 percent by 2030.   Such population decline can be observed in every city and town in California. What we observe cannot be dismissed as being merely a statistical dip; it is a growing trend. 

 

The End of Marriage For Descendants of Slaves

Marriage rates for DOS are correlated with DOS demographic decline. There has been a consistent decline in the marriage rate among descendants of slaves generally.  Even among college educated DOS, the marriage rate is in free fall. The Brookings Institute reported a study which found that 60% of black college graduates have never married.[2]

 

In an article published by Scholars Strategy Network, Dawne Mauzon states: In 1960, 61% of blacks were married but by 2008 it was only 32%. Blacks also get divorced more often and remarry less frequently than whites.”[3]  What other factors are correlated with the marriage decline among DOS?

Mauzon hypothesizes, and I quote: “In part, the men are just not there in many black communities.” That is a social fact. It is normative for black adult males to be absent in black families. The chances are greater for that being the case than not. In California, 29% or 39, 451 of all black males are prison inmates.  

Furthermore, the Pew report revealed that DOS females have a narrowly defined preference list.[4] In short, most black women surveyed have high financial aspirations when it comes to choosing a mate.

No Marriage and Education Balance for Descendants of Slaves

The Pew Report went on to reveal that Black women prefer a well-educated black male. That preference exists although in California Black male enrollment at California State Universities is approximately 1.5 percent or 3,860 of the total student body of over 200,000 students. It is even worse at the California Universities where in the fall of 2016 at U.C. Berkeley there were only 393 black male freshmen of the 13,900 entering freshmen. At California Poly Technic State University San Luis Obispo, one of the most important engineering and architectural institutions in the nation, black males constitute less than 1 percent of the student body of 26,000 students. One must also keep in mind that a significant number of those are immigrant Africans or their descendants.

Thus, with a ratio of 1 African American Male for every 2 African American females at California State Universities, it is highly unlikely that the far more numerous females will match up with black males having equal educational credentials inside California.[5] That is a national pattern.

No Marriage and Financial Stability for Descendants of Slaves

Lastly, the Pew Research report revealed that 50% of black women surveyed want male financial stability as a precondition to marriage. That compared to only 25% of white women who wanted the same. This expectation is not what most black males can meet according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In California, 20% of descendants of slaves are at or below the poverty line; that is 1 out of every 5. Full employment for many is a thing of the past.

It was reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2015 that male descendants of slaves had an unemployment rate of 11% in the State of California.[6] That rate of DOS unemployment has become a constant since California lost between 30 and 40 percent of its manufacturing jobs over the course of the last three decades.

The California unemployment rate is twice as high as the national average. Black men are more likely to be in and out of employment more frequently than males of other ethnic groups. There are many reasons for that but suffice it to say that the reality of black male financial stability does not equate with what 50% of black females in that survey want.

Those black females who want men who are financially stable will generally not find them in the private sector either. The loss of black businesses will be an unintended consequence of a declining black population and or communities in California. So, if you are African American, don’t start your business in California unless you live in a densely-populated immigrant African community or have White and or Hispanic patronage. Generally, black businesses are suffering and withering away. There will be a dearth of financially viable black men from those job markets for black women who want to marry financially stable black men who own a  business.

Part of the reinforcement feedback loop will be a loss of black patronage for black businesses including banks. And there is no evidence to support a claim that white and Hispanic people will significantly patronize black businesses including the use of black professional services. A derivative effect of low or no financial stability in the DOS community is that in California they have no political power.

No Political Representation for Descendants of Slaves 

All citizens are urged to employ legislative representatives for remedy of their grievances in democratic societies. We are taught that the laws that govern us all will clearly reflect both our fears and hopes. We are taught the enforcement of those laws will recognize no class differences by state law enforcement agencies. We are taught that every citizen brought before our criminal courts are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We are taught that justice is blind and so not respecting the person hears only the facts.

We have virtually no representation in the State Legislature. As of 2016, only 10 state legislators are of African descent. That is a far less proportion than the proportion of DOS in California. No wonder our needs go unmet.[7]  Black politicians serve the interests of their doners. The interests of their doners is greater power for themselves not DOS.

  

If a community’s interests are defined in terms of power, meaning that their interests are reflected in the laws and policies of society and acted upon by its many agencies, then DOS have no political power in California. For the overwhelming magnitude of social and economic privations among DOS in the many cities where they are concentrated evidences a wide fault line in this Californian democracy. On one side of that fault line are Descendants of Slaves and on the other side is everyone else including black politicians who generally supported the NAFTA agreement signed into law under Bill Clinton in 1994.

DOS have been politically abandoned in California. Therefore, descendants of slaves do not participate the democratic process in California enough to qualify them as voice in state affairs. Descendants of slaves are institutionally powerless and perhaps more importantly, they cannot muster street power to make their voices heard. 

No Habitat for Descendants of Slaves

There is a zoological assumption at the foundation of my discussion. The truth is there is inadequate carrying capacity for most DOS in the state of California.   There is too much environmental resistance on all levels to DOS growth. There was a time when we were not here and there will be a time very soon when we will be here no longer. As a unique ethnic group in California, DOS are running out of habitat in California. Like any other animal, the loss of habitat spells doom.

The factors which I have identified along with many others including those of mental health, religious institutions, and political affiliation are also parts of reinforcing feedback loops causing DOS communities to spin irreversibly out of control. Though some individuals will live on in the state, generally there is no future for DOS as a community in the State of California.

 

 

[1] Quran: 76:2, 18:37, 23:13

[2] American Family Survey; Restricted to Women aged 25 to 35, cited from Brookings Institute: Race Gaps in Marriage Rates for College Graduates

[3] Dawne Mouzon, Rutgers University, Why Has Marriage Declined Among Black Americans, Rutgers University, 2013

[4] Pew Research Center, Survey, 2010

[5] Keep in mind that most college educated men marry down the socio-economic scale or are indifferent to a women’s education level.

[6] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment Rates for Blacks by State, 2015

[7] California Research Bureau, California State Library

MORAL POWER, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

How can our earth have such plenitude of life, clean water, and dense forests just 12,000 years ago, but now have become reduced to increasing scarcity of life, unclean water, and diminishing forests along with rising human misery after only a few hundred years? What is the cause or what is to blame? I think that history reveals a clear relation between the choices we make and planetary enhancement or degradation.

We cannot blame technology in and of itself because technologies of whatever kind are merely instruments of human creation and use. Technologies do not have a practical purpose independent of the design given to them by human beings. Technologies are only purposeful when guided by the hand of a human being.

The technologies which are designed, mass produced, and marketed by corporate power elites filter down to billions of people in global markets and into homes worldwide. Then, when used on a mass scale by people who do not understand the harm such technologies do, the harm done to earth grows to immeasurable depths.[1]

The mass use of a single technology like a cellular phone or automobile by billions of human beings on any given day is causing mass irreparable damage to the fabric of our moral lives and to life forms on earth. The fact is that moral depravity and earthly depravity are positively correlated.

The signs of global resource scarcity, environmental imbalance, and rise in human misery point to specific choices which some human beings have been making with cold indifference to other better alternative choices which could have been made by them.  Their choices are ‘moral choices’.  Moral action and its opposite called negligence are the context of all human relations.

Both the Bible and the Holy Quran make the same argument by means of an allegorical story.[2] The first human beings were made guardians of a Garden; imagine that the Garden symbolizes the Earth.  A guardian is a moral overseer. Their prime directive from God was to do no harm and break no promises.  After committing harm and breaking a promise, the first human beings were condemned to physical, emotional, and spiritual degeneration in perpetuity. It is called: the fall from grace. That allegorical story implies the necessity of making moral choices so that we can have healthy social and environemental relations.

In law school, I studied the law of Torts. I studied a branch of Tort called the Tort of Negligence.[3] The central proposition in the law of negligence is simple. It is that ‘every person has a duty of due care so as not to harm another’. When one breaches his or her duty of due care to other persons and harms them, they are defined by law as having been negligent.  They are defined as having breached ‘the social contract.’[4]

Before we act, we should always consider what behavior is the best behavior so that we reduce the chance we will do harm to another including all other animals. Undeniably, the law of Negligence is a moral principle. The law of Negligence is a civil law implicit in all criminal laws; it is a fundamental principle in all human groups. The fact that human groups exist at all makes moral principles self-evident.

When a person is presented with more than one choice of action in a circumstance, the question is: which option is the best choice out of several alternatives? There is always the best choice of action out of several options in every given circumstance.

Some scholars argue that human beings are fundamentally selfish.[5] But the best choice cannot simply be that choice which optimizes what is good or pleasurable for the person making the choice. That would be an act of irrational selfishness.[6] For what is good for one person or even several persons or even a whole nation may be disastrous for billions of other persons in the short and long run.

Evidence exist to support that claim. Look at the last several thousand years of what I call the ‘Empire Game’. The Empire Game has been and is now an unmitigated disaster for all humanity. The Empire Game has even assumed the title of ‘World History’ implying that all other facets of human history are less important than it.

But there is also what are called in law ‘acts of omission’. Sometimes, under some circumstances, even making no choice can be an act of negligence which causes harm to another. Therefore, the argument that ‘some choices are amoral’ meaning morally neutral is a false premise because individuals and groups always make choices they define as good or pleasurable for themselves. And those choices even if it is a choice not to choose any course of action always cause effects. Therefore, there is no such thing as an ‘amoral’ choice because all choices and even decisions not to choose have unintended consequences on other people and the earth.[7]

For that reason, the issue of moral power and its effect on human and other environmental relations is the central problem facing us today. It is a central problem facing descendants of slaves. If that problem is not solved quickly, there will be no hope for mass survival during this age of global dysfunction.[8]

The political, corporate, and religious power elite casts a very long shadow over billions of people on this earth of ours. At the end of the day, their shadows convert to social and spiritual privation for all those living in their shadow. In a sense their shadow blocks rational sunlight from reaching into the lives of many people. It makes us less able to live moral lives because it stresses us to be less cooperative and more irrational and conflictual in relation to our neighbors and earth.

For subordinate people, everywhere, the life of the power elite is the antithesis of the life lived by those in their shadow. The elite, whether they be political, religious, or business elites, live a life of wealth and intellectual supremacy at the biological, economic and social expense of all people subordinate to them. 

What can we do? Can we hypothetically get a grasp of the gravity of our social and economic problems? Let’s imagine some possibilities and follow them through to a conclusion. Let’s do a thought experiment.

Hypothetically speaking, if every descendant of slaves who is incarcerated in State, Federal, County, and City jails were released tomorrow; and

Hypothetically speaking, if every descendant of slaves who is released vowed to never commit another crime; and,

Hypothetically speaking, if no crimes were committed by descendants of slaves released from prison thereafter; and,

Hypothetically speaking, if all other descendants of slaves vowed that they would never break the law; and,

Hypothetically speaking, if all descendants of slaves in fact did not commit felonies ever again in the United States, then what would happen?

First, there would be an extra million and a half descendants of slaves living mainly in cities but also in small towns throughout the United States.

One million and a half more descendants of slaves would immediately add about 2% to the African American unemployment rate which already stands at about 16% or twice that of White unemployment.  That would make the unemployment rate for African Americans about 18%.   What can we compare an 18% unemployment rate to?  For that, we turn to the 20th century.

During the height of the 20th century’s great depression, the percentage of unemployed Americans was 25%. Thus, if there were a 2% rise in unemployment, descendants of slaves would experience an economic depression equivalent to the great depression wherever they lived in the United States in 2017.

Secondly, if no crimes were committed by descendants of slaves, the criminal justice system would collapse unless it seized upon another ethnic group to criminalize. Let’s assume the criminal justice system did not seize upon another ethnic victim. What would happen?

An unintended consequence of mass lawful behavior would be a second wave of unemployment adding to the 2% rise in black unemployment; but this time among whites. The ripple effect would expand far and wide into the economy. Share value in private for profit prisons stock would literally become worthless. Billions of dollars would be lost over night making wealthy white investors poor.

What would happen is that the “1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 942 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,283 local jails, and 79 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, and prisons in the U.S. territories” would get significant Federal, State, County, and city budget cuts. That would include cutbacks in criminal courts with district attorneys, public defenders, police officers, and private criminal lawyers becoming unemployed along with everyone who works in the criminal justice system from administrators, correctional officers, to janitors. It would affect over 500, 000 individual employees and their families. In dollar terms, let’s say a cutback of about $85 billion dollars nationwide.  State, Federal governments would lose money because they would no longer have a justification for increased taxation of citizens to support the criminal justice system. Look at the graph below to get a bird’s eye view of the magnitude of economic dependence governments and corporations have on crime and the incarceration of descendants of slaves.

What would all those descendants of slaves choose to do under such circumstances? The economic characteristics of the United States are changing so fast that even the most educated Americans are continually having to retool their skills to keep up with technological change. How can under-educated ex-felon descendants of slaves be expected to do so?

 

Robots at the “Hannover Messe” trade fair in Hanover, Germany, April 2014[9].

The fact is that there would be no jobs for most of them aside from agricultural employment. The reasons that they would have nothing to do center around 1) their general lack of education. Here are the facts: “About 41% of inmates in the Nation’s State and Federal prisons and local jails in 1997 and 31% of probationers had not completed high school or its equivalent. In comparison, 18% of the general population age 18 or older had not finished the 12th grade.”[10] The educational characteristics of incarcerated descendants of slaves change at a glacial pace. The same educational characteristics hold true in 2017.

A second reason is that negative stigmata would be attached to them for having been incarcerated and simply for being ‘black’ in this white supremacist society.

Descendants of slaves have never been able to even minimally compete with the dominate white culture on any level. Some say ‘well what about sports’? I say to them that ‘No descendent of slaves owns a professional sport team in any league or sport.’ That holds true generally in the entertainment industry as well. Some others will argue, ‘well we can restart Black Wall Street such as the one which existed in Tulsa, Oklahoma in the 1920s.’ I say, “one cannot step twice into the same river.” Times, circumstances, and especially sentiments among Descendants of Slaves completely rule out that possibility. Some others will say: we can join a church or Masjid or Temple. I say that none of those American religious institutions will bite the hand which feeds them. They have become instruments of the banking system debt slavery and therefore of Wall Street.

Furthermore, that kind of change is not likely now because of ethnic integration and the rapidity of technological changes taking place. Add to that the increasing dysfunctional social life of most descendants of slaves particularly those million and a half individuals in our thought experiment now out of prisons and jails.  It leads to one conclusion. The only rational choice, the best choice, for descendants of slaves would be the choice to exercise moral power. Simply obey all laws. 

[1] Include under technology genetically modified organisms.

[2] Genesis Chapter 2, Torah; Holy Quran 2:30

[3] The Tort of Negligence literally means: the harm of negligence

[4] The Social Contract. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[5] Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1849; Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976

[6] All human beings are intinctual or behaviorally unconsciously driven but we are also conscious and rational when fully developed. Moral decisions arise out of rational deliberation. Out of that kind of deliberation society is made possible. There is initially an imbalance in favor of instinct. But over time conscious rationality more or less increases.

[7] I once heard George Soros say that his decisions are ‘amoral’. Soros is in conscious denial or lying.

[8] William Vogt, Road to Survival; chapter 2, ‘Biotic Limits’, 1944

[9] Erik Brynjolfsson, Andrew McAfee, and Michael Spence July/August 2014

[10] Education and Correctional Populations, Bureau of Justice Statistics, by Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D., 2003