From The Book: A Particular Line of Reasoning, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Book Cover Earthcolony



For a man who epitomizes in so many ways the very spirit of the modern scientific method by his meticulous natural observations and application of inductive reasoning, Charles Darwin either knowingly or unknowingly welds onto his grand theory of natural selection several theoretical corollaries which fit straight onto the line of reasoning which we have so painstakingly traced from Plato and Aristotle.[1]   His book was entitled: ‘On the Origen of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for life’ (1859’). We are only concerned with those corollary theories which support the thesis of this book and so shall not challenge Darwin’s major theory except to say that it, too, originates within the set of assumptions and methodology laid out by Aristotle.  Simply put, Darwin is an Aristotelian naturalist.  What underlies his theory is the same assumption of proportionate justice or natural law which is central to Aristotle’s theory of nature.

The first evidence to support the thesis that Darwin continues in the line of reasoning we have previously identified is found in ‘The Descent of Man’. Besides giving credence to the concept of ‘race’, he states regarding hominid physical differences that there are corresponding ‘mental’ differences: “The races differ also in constitution,” and “Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct…partly in their intellectual faculties.”[2] Darwin then takes a major leap far above the bar raised by Plato and Aristotle’s admonition to kill all deformed infants.  He posits the theory of extinction as being a by-product of natural selection, i.e., the fitness or unfitness of a species as measured by their respective number of offspring, competitive success in obtaining material resources, and adaptation to changing environmental conditions. He states the outcome of his natural drama in these words: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at the present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”[3]  Here he cleverly states that eventually there will be a greater gap between the highest race and the lowest primate, once Negroes become extinct.

But Darwin also follows closely Aristotle’s evaluation of women.  He parallels closely the comments made by Aristotle in his ‘History of Animals’. Therein he states that women suffer a monthly episode of ‘catamania’[4] Darwin states more categorically that women are intellectually inferior to man and that she is more like the lower races.  He then quotes his cousin Francis Galton: “…if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.”[5] As we shall see this is the same application of the normal distribution curve to support the modern theory of inherent intellectual differences between the ‘races’. He concludes by saying: “Thus, man has ultimately become superior to women.”[6] With but a few changes, we may thus peek Darwin’s hidden premise that ‘white men have ultimately become superior to all other races both male and females.’  In fact he says as much.

In his book: ‘The Decent of Man’, Darwin predicts the global genocide of savage races by a superior race.   Once again his central theory of proportionate justice designated by him to be ‘natural selection’ is the ‘invisible hand’ working to adjust survival merit based upon the greater or lesser actualization of survival potential in competing gene pools.  Never mind at this point the fallacious assumption of ‘pure race’ as promulgated by Plato and Aristotle.  Rather, let us remember Plato’s query in ‘the Republic’: ‘How do we make them believe?’ The point here is that the genocidal outcome predicted by Darwin is less the operation of nature and more the product of solicitation and conspiracy.

It is no coincidence that Darwin’s description of nature is so very much analogous with Adam Smith’s central theory of capitalism.[7] Both theorists argue from Aristotle’s natural law theory.  Adam Smith’s interests lie within a far more limited scope of nature; indeed it is an artificial replication of nature revealed through the ‘market place’. But the dynamic interaction of supply and demand nevertheless manifests as the same struggle of the fit which Darwin describes in the natural order.  Deducible from the thesis of both Darwin and Smith is the conclusion that some human groups will be wiped from the face of the earth or the market place, forever.










[1] Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and the Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, William Benton, Publisher, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Great Books, 1952

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Aristotle, History of Animals, [581]

[5] Ibid, Chapter 19; pp 566-567

[6] Ibid

[7] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776

From The Book: A Particular Line of Reasoning, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Book Cover Earthcolony13.5


Governmental policies which defined the value of human life during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were wrought with contradictions. Running in inverse relation to the genocidal policies enacted against Native Americans and the lynching policies against African Americans as well as eugenics statutes aimed at maintaining the ‘purity’ of ‘White Anglo Saxon Protestant’ racial types were policies enacted into law to protect unborn fetuses by making it a felony for women to abort fetal development. Indeed, from 1850 to 1965 all fifty states of the United States made abortion a felony.[1]  All methods of birth control legislation aimed to protect the sanctity of human life, but on the other hand states could exercise police power to force castration or a hysterectomy on anyone it deemed to be genetically unfit whether or not their ‘unfitness’ was accidental, i.e., not attributable to any genetic predisposition.

The non-legislative prong of the institutional embedding of ‘degeneration’ theory would emerge at the popular level of society through the ‘Birth Control League’ which was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921.  Her leading supporters and board members were the leading eugenicists of the day. Lothrop Stoddart, Edward A. East, Havelock Ellis, Henry Pratt Fairchild, Clarence C. Little, as well as many others who studded her board of directors and conferences.  A very telling statement by Sanger was made in 1932: “f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”[2] Who would define ‘dysgenic’ groups? Would ‘they’ be the Congress of the United States? Maybe one person would decide, e.g., the President of the United States by executive order? Perhaps ‘they’ would be the Supreme Court justices by constitutional interpretation (Buck v. Bell, 1927)? Or would they be the Aristotelian ‘boule’ of a totalitarian plutocratic state? What is the political basis for the choice of a lesser of two evils, i.e., either ‘segregation or sterilization?

Perhaps it is simply a coincidence or perhaps not that since the enactment of desegregation laws such as the Supreme Court holding in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 74 S.Ct. 686 (1954), the civil rights legislation of 1965 as well as the land mark Supreme Court decision: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); that there have been over 70 million abortions in the United States the vast majority of which (32% or 22,400,000) have been done by African Americans.[3] Not debating the pros and cons of that Supreme Court decision and a women’s right to unilaterally decide life or death for developing fetuses, the statistical consequences compel us to conclude that the choices by African American women to sterilize themselves was and is the de facto price they have paid for civil desegregation and economic opportunities in the United States as alluded to by Margaret Sanger. And like the Harvard graduate and African American sociologist W.E.B. Dubois, hundreds if not thousands of African American proponents for birth control, including Christian ministers and newspaper businesses, were and are enlisted to promote abortion propaganda in the African American community once marshaled under the banner of ‘The Negro Project’.

So effective has been that effort  that over the last thirty years the number of African American children by households with no children has increased by 5%; the number of children by households with 1 child has decreased by 1.4%; and number of children by households with 2 children has decreased 3.3%.[4]  The bell curve pattern of decreasing fertility rate when overlaid with the bell curve pattern of an increasing African American baby boomer death rate portends a massive drop in the African American population by 2045 when the last of those 7,500,000 African baby boomers born between 1946 and 1965 are dead.[5]












[1]   Abortion in Law, History, & Religion, Childbirth by Choice, Trust, Revised 1995, Toronto, Canada. Also, see the Comstock Act of 1873.

[2]   Margaret Sanger, A Plan for Peace, published by Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

[3]   African American Females who constitute about 3.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2000-2001 were 32% of all abortions. Patterns in Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women obtaining Abortions, by Rachel K. Jones, Jacqueline E. Darroch, and Stanley K. Henshaw; in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Volume 34, Number 5, Sept., Oct. 2002

[4]   U.S. Census Bureau

[5]   A bell curve pattern of decreasing African American marriages over the same 30 year period must also be factored into the analysis.