transendent inspiration

Origen Adamantius was an early Christian theologian.  He was born in 185 A.D. at Alexandria, Egypt. He died in 253 A.D. at the city of Tyre.   His magnum opus is entitled ‘First Principles’.  In it, he outlines a theory of human origin which supports my argument that the Christian theological definition of what a human being is has its roots in both Platonic and Aristotelian anthropological assumptions. That definition of the human soul’s origin is contrary to the Egyptian, Hebraic, and Islamic account of the human soul’s origin out of the ‘dust of the earth’.

Origen’s influence on the direction of Christian thought is substantive and we can see his ideas mirror Hesiod and are in turn mirrored in modern political policy. We can see that even more clearly upon our close examination of his fundamental assumptions about humanity’s origin and social justice.

The first assumption is of course that God exist as pure immaterial ‘thought thinking itself eternally.’[1]  For Origen, this is a given, so we need not dwell at length on it.

His second assumption is that ‘minds’ or ‘archetypes’ participated in ‘God thought’ or what Plato termed the ‘Vision of Beauty’.[2]

The third assumption follows from the second.  That assumption is that because of the soul’s lack of perfection due to its possession of an inherent antithesis to their participation in divine unity, degeneration was triggered which moved souls into a lower status of ‘being and not being’ synchronicity.[3]

According to Origen, some of those lower beings are human souls.  Regarding that he says: “God did not begin to create minds…before the ages [time in the past tense][4] minds were all pure…But there remained some souls who had not sinned so greatly as to become daemons, nor, on the other hand, so very lightly as to become angels.  God therefore made the present world and bound the soul to the body as a punishment.”[5]  We can see from the preceding quote that Origen’s theory is set within the Platonic theological paradigm as a sub-theory resting upon the same assumptions but adapted to Christian mythology.

We can find even more evidence of conformity to Platonic as well as Aristotelian anthropology in the work of Origen. He employs the metaphorical tool derived from Hesiod’s ‘Works and Days’ as used by Plato in the Republic, i.e., the ‘myth of the metals’ to justify not only natural variation among human beings but also to justify on grounds of divine ordination the differing values of human worth based upon ‘sins’ earned in the spirit world: “God, however, who then felt it just to arrange his creation according to merit, gathered the diversities of minds into the harmony of a single world, so as to furnish, as it were, out of these diverse vessels or souls or minds, one house, in which there must be not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some unto honor and some unto dishonor.”[6]

It follows then, that the definition of what a human being is for Origen is predicated upon human nature as a ‘soul’ and that the body is a consequence of spiritual failing: “…each has obtained his degree of dignity in proportion to his own merits…”[7] For Origen a human being is defined from the ‘in-side out’, but under natural conditions Origen finds a graded hierarchy determined by phenotypical differences marking off one person or group from another person or group as more or less approximating the Divinity of God.






[1] Aristotle, Metaphysics [After Physics]

[2] Plato, Symposium, translated by Benjamin Jowett, William Benton Publisher, 1952, [212]

[3] George Hegel’s theory of Being is similar to this because it too suggests an ‘antithesis’ to Being.

[4] Italics mine

[5] Origen, Origen on First Principles, being Kaetschau’s Text of the De Principiis Translated into English, together with an Introduction and Notes by G.W. Butterworth, LITT.D., Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Northumberland Avenue,  London, 1936  pp 67

[6] Ibid, pp. 134

[7] Ibid, pp. 71



Nothing in the Torah (Old Testament) makes futuristic reference to the United States or any other modern nation.

Nor does the Torah (Old Testament) predict any event that has occurred or is occurring today in the United States or anywhere in the world from the past times at which its 24 books were written.

Nor does the Torah predict the birth of any specific person who has ever existed in the past and up to the modern world.  Can you imagine all the microscopic spermatozoa and ovum which would have to be sorted out over millions of years by someone to make such a prediction! Can you imagine the magnitude of the mathematical analysis which would be needed in such an effort!

Nor does the Torah tell the history of most African people. The Torah has nothing to do with West and Southern Africa. It has nothing to do with African history in the United States.  It did not and does not predict the past and present predicament of African people in the United States.

Nor does the Torah tell an authentic history of Hebrew people who were an East African ethnic population who also lived on the African peninsula called today Arabia but which at least 1,600 years ago was included in Abyssinia and Mesopotamia and which at least 500 BCE was part of Kemet (Egypt).

The Torah is a mythological compilation of books written and redacted in 458 B.C. by Ben Ezra Abraham and a group of scribes after their captivity in Persia. It is relevant to only one group. They are called Jews.  It is a book of their traditions not yours.  It is a book which defines for them their cultural identity and language not yours. There is nothing you can do to change that because only children born of Jewish women are classified as ‘Jewish’. Yes, you can convert to Judaism, but orthodox Jews identify Jews by blood line.

Nor does the Torah convey to you how the universe and you came into being.  It is a montage of creation myths from Mesopotamia and Kemet (Egypt).

Does that make you afraid?  It should not make you afraid because the existence of God does not depend upon the existence of Jewish people or the Torah.  The existence of God is not dependent upon Jewish consciousness or anyone else’s consciousness because God is independent.

Negro urban ghetto churches and Mosques are full of those who interpret biblical passages in that way.  It has become a part of a Negro ghetto religious scam enterprise.  The scam artists do it to you because they know you are not skilled in the study of historiography and critical thinking. They also know that your ignorance and fears make you vulnerable to their lies.  Consequently, they make good money living off of you and your families. They sell to you false prophesies. Think for a moment. If the future could be predicted why can’t catastrophic events be avoided? Or why can’t African Americans avoid being poor and undereducated?

Such people claim that passages in the Torah are prophesies pointing from a past era identified in the Torah to what would happen in our modern world. That is a lie, too.  If you would study history then you would note that the same predictions were made one hundred years ago about the times and conditions prevailing then. Those predictions were false, too. Believing in such predictions will make you into a fatalist.

For example, if you are a descendent of slaves in the United States and your preacher or minister tells you that the enslavement of the Hebrews in the Torah is actually pointing to the enslavement of African people in the United States then think logically for a moment. What happens if you believe that?  Must African people also accept as their fate that they will suffer as did the Jews in Nazi Germany? Should African Americans resign themselves to the horrors of extermination camps?

You can conclude one thing for certain about any person who makes such a claim. He or she is a person who does not have divine knowledge.  Imagine yourself floating in space outside of any known galaxy without the possibility of death.  Just out there by yourself in total dark matter absent all light.  Now ask yourself: ‘what time is it?’ There is no answer to that question because there would be no present or future. There would be no time frame at all.  It is as impossible for Old Testament text to predict what will happen in modern time and space as it would be for you to predict in absolute dark matter what will happen to you there.

Historiography demands that you analyze what has happened in the past if you can get at the evidence and authenticate it.  But the best that you can do even if you have such evidence is draw more or less cogent inferences about patterns of change that have occurred which suggests similar probable outcomes.  That will require you to do hard intellectual work.  That would be like cooking a good nutritious non- GMO meal from scratch at home. It will take some work but it is better for you and will cost you less money.

The Desolation of Race – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney, Political Economist


Today, with DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) we can purportedly trace our genetic markers to regions where people share similar genetic markers. 




This does not mean that this is where we necessarily originated, particularly if your DNA has been influenced by slavery, and other cross breeding.  It does mean that we share some, but not all of the genetic markers with the people who live there now.   It also does not mean that the people are of the ancestry claimed by those who prepared the chart.  For example, those living in Northern Africa or for that matter, Southern Europe, do not necessarily share DNA with those living in Northern Europe.  They may be totally dissimilar.




Generally lineages used to characterize African admixture are those that are specific to Africa.  Some DNA polymorphisms are shared by Europeans, West Asians, North Africans, and Sub-Sahran Africans.   Examples of such variants include the y-chromosomal haplogroup E1b1b and mitochrondrial haplogroup M1.




There is a flaw the science that suggests that all Northern Africans share similar DNA with Europeans. 




For example, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. who produced a series on DNA tracing suggests he is mostly white.



Henry Louis Gates IMG_20131208_133223




He bases his theory in part on the supposed fact that a certain percentage of his DNA is derived from Europe and rumors from his own family. 

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. sounds ridiculous looking as he does and claiming to be 56% White.  Race can be something we see.  However, it generally has more to do with culture.




* According to, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.


* According to, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.


* According to Family Tree, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.


* According to National Geographic’s Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.






However, being of European descent does not mean that one is necessarily what we call White.  Moreover, as modern researchers claim, all humans descended from common African Black African ancestors.  Additionally, the ancestral chart for the DNA is flawed as it declares northern Africans and others to be Europeans.   More recently, it has been scientifically determined that a percentage of what we call Europeans possess Neaderthal DNA, for those are the beings that lived in the caves of Europe. 






According to Cavalli-Sforza’s work, all non-African populations are more closely related to each other than to Africans; supporting the hypothesis that all non-Africans descend from a single old-African population. The genetic distance from Africa to Europe (16.6) was found to be shorter than the genetic distance from Africa to East Asia (20.6), and much shorter than that from Africa to Australia (24.7).




Cavalli-Sforza explains:




“…both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively”






Consequently the definitions of “African”, “Sub-Saharan African” and “North African” will depend on the time frame of reference or the semantic preferences of any particular scientist. Due to prehistoric migrations in and out of Africa, North African populations tend to exhibit allele frequencies that are intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia. Due to this complex genetic profile of Africa, African admixture in Europe could be the result of direct contact with Sub-Saharan Africans or indirectly through contact with North Africans with Sub-Saharan affiliations.




During the Al-Andalus era inSpain, the Maghreb’s inhabitants, Maghrebis, were known as “Moors”; the Muslim” areas of Spain in those times were usually included in contemporary definitions of the Maghreb—hence the use of ‘Moor’ or ‘Moors’ to describe the Muslim inhabitants of Spain by Christian and other Western sources.



In short, it is good to take pride in your heritage.  It is great to know where on earth people live who share your DNA; however, insofar as identifying whether you are primarily of European descent, or for that matter whether you are what some call Black or White, I think much more work will have to be completed.  And, except to identify or locate diseases why should it be important?





Welcome to – More Police Corruption – Cover-up In Law Enforcement – By Wayne Johnson – Attorney, Political Economist



According to the latest news, FBI agents began arresting Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials December 9, 2013 as part of a wide-ranging investigation into allegations of abuse and misconduct inside the county’s jails.  The FBI claims they expect to arrest at least a dozen more.




When I read this, I thought of Christopher Dorner, the renegade Los Angeles Police Officer, who earlier this year went on the shooting spree.  According to him, law enforcement officers in Los Angeles are corrupt and they engage in systematic cover-up.




The FBI arrested A lieutenant, a sergeant and a deputy as part of a federal obstruction of justice probe into how sheriff’s officials handled an FBI informant at the center of the jail investigation.



Federal officials say 18 current and former Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies saw themselves as being “above the law,” engaging in corruption and civil rights abuses that included beating inmates and visitors, falsifying reports, and trying to block an FBI probe of the nation’s largest jail system.


Los Angeles County Sheriff Baca said that he was troubled by the charges and called it a sad day for his department.  He also promised reforms.


The arrests followed grand jury hearings into whether sheriff’s officials hid an inmate, Anthony Brown, from his FBI handlers. Sources say, at least one witness testified that sheriff’s officials moved the inmate and changed his name in an attempt to hide him from federal agents, and that top officials in the department played a role in the plan.




Conveniently, some Sheriff’s officials insist they were not hiding Brown from the FBI but protecting him from other deputies who might harm him.




If you have to hide an inmate from “those who may harm him,” that says loads about the institution. 




It is unclear whether Monday’s arrests included deputies accused of using excessive force against inmates.


Sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore did not have an immediate response to the probe.




Sheriff’s officials discovered the informant’s identity after jail deputies found his phone during a cell search in August 2011. The phone included calls to the FBI. In an interview with The Times last year, the informant said he had been using his phone to take photos and document excessive force inside Men’s Central Jail. Brown said FBI agents regularly visited him in court and at the jail, where he supplied them with the names of corrupt and abusive deputies.




Brown said FBI agents rushed into the jail to visit him soon after they learned his cover had been blown. But as the meeting began, Brown said, a sheriff’s investigator came in and ended it. “This … visit is over,” the official said, according to Brown.


Brown said sheriff’s officials moved him, changed his name several times and grilled him about what he knew and whether he would testify in the federal investigation.




“I didn’t know it then, but they were hiding me from the feds,” said Brown, who is serving 423 years to life in prison for armed robbery.




Sheriff’s officials have publicly denied Brown’s account of the FBI visit, saying it never happened. Federal agents, a Sheriff’s department spokesman previously said, never asked to visit Brown and would have been given access to the inmate had they requested it.




Well, that may have been the case, but maybe the agents did not identify themselves as agents.




These sort of officials are just gangsters.  If law enforcement officials who house prisoners behave in this manner, there is no wonder inmates do not learn anything while incarcerated.




There should be a real push for reform.  If we are going to release and reintroduce prisoners from jail into society, there should be an avenue for those, at least those who really want to try, to acquire skills other than the use of corruption, brute force and intimidation.   




There should also be a place for those to go beforehand, so that they are never introduced into such an abusive system.




Anyone who is sent to jail should not learn to be a gangster or earn a Doctorate in criminal behavior, particularly from those housing them.  One should not have to worry about corruption, or physical harm by inmates or jailors.  The worse thing on your mind should be your actual sentence, which for most is, the length of time you are to be incarcerated.


Why Do They Hate Africa? – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney – Political Economist

Africa IMG_20131207_171134

The continent of Africa is larger than all of Europe, the United States, including Alaska, and China.   There were and still are a lot of people, resources, and animals to exploit; however, they could never conquer its interior because it was too hostile to all, but its natural inhabitants.

A recent study explains how initially geography may have favored one group of people – Europeans – providing them with tools of conquest.  Germs allowed Europeans to colonize vast tracts of the globe – but what happened when this all-conquering package arrived in Africa, the birthplace of humanity? How could a continent so rich in natural resources and resistant to European conquest end up the poorest continent on earth? In South Africa European farmers were able to grow cattle, wheat, grapes and barley. They were dealt a very lucky hand by geography – they landed in one of the few temperate zones of the southern hemisphere – a climate to which their crops an animals were ideally suited. These foundations of their historical success worked for them even 6,000 miles from home and they were able to sweep aside the indigenous hunting communities with ease – assisted by the impact of European germs. But these settlers were not ones to stand still. A mass migration known as the Great Trek took thousands of Dutch settlers north and east – into unknown territory – and, as they found to their cost, into Zulu land. The Zulus had built a sophisticated African state based on military conquest – and now they resisted European invasion. But eventually, overcoming the limitations of their weapons and inheriting new, automatic weapons form industrialized Europe, the settlers triumphed over their rival African tribes – at the cost of thousands of lives. As the settlers traveled further north, life suddenly became a lot harder. The foundations of their success, their crops and animals, refused to grow. They were forced to barter for food from their neighbors.  Europeans began to fall ill with a mysterious and terrifying fever, malaria. It was a complete reversal of the usual pattern of European conquest.

Unlike elsewhere in the world – where Europeans had landed in a temperate zone and traveled from east to west, maintaining similar climates – here in Africa, Europeans landed in the south and migrated north, moving through latitude zones and experiencing radically different climates. In fact, as they crossed the Limpopo River, they had entered the Tropics. Temperate crops such as wheat simply can’t survive in a tropical climate. Nor can European animals – plagued by the diseases which thrive in the Tropics. About 5,000 years ago,  Bantu farmers began to spread beyond their native north-west region, moving into new lands, picking up crops and animals as they went. Eventually, Bantu culture spread across most of tropical Africa, reaching as far as the Zulu territories of the south. Physical evidence for this vast tropical diaspora is scant, but archaeologists have found clues at a site on the banks of the Limpopo known as Mapungubwe – the place of the jackal. Here there is evidence for a complex, agricultural state supporting thousands of people throughout southern Africa – farming sorghum and cattle, forging iron, exporting gold and tin and importing exotic materials and precious stones from as far away as India and China. The discovery of Mapungubwe overturned centuries of prejudice about African history and proved the continent played host to a sophisticated tropical civilization centuries before the arrival of Europeans. Elsewhere in the world, European germs laid the foundations for European conquest -decimating native populations who had no previous exposure to diseases like smallpox. But in tropical Africa, the indigenous peoples seemed to survive both imported European germs, and the tropical fevers which were decimating European settlers. Europeans now believe smallpox in fact may have evolved in tropical Africa – and had certainly been present in the continent for thousands of years. So African cattle-farmers had evolved antibodies and immunities similar to their European rivals; they had even invented methods of smallpox vaccination, conferring immunity for life. And their lifestyles were designed to avoid infection from mosquitoes, carriers of the deadly malaria parasite. Over centuries of exposure, tropical Africans evolved degrees of physical immunity to the worst effects of this tropical disease. But they also learned to live in high or dry locations, away from the natural habitat of the mosquito, and to limit the level of disease transmission by keeping their communities relatively small. African civilization had evolved strategies which helped them survive – even thrive – in the topics.

Until a recent molecular genetic study on present-day Africa cattle (Hanotte et al., 2002) revealed that the earliest cattle (Bos taurus) originated within the African continent, the widely accepted theory had been that this group of Humpless (Bos taurus) Hametic Longhorn cattle breeds have descended from the first domesticated cattle populations of the Humpless Hamitic Longhorn cattle in the region so-called the ‘Fertile Crescent’, possibly 9000 BP (Payne and Hodges, 1997); these were said to be the first cattle to be introduced to Africa across the land connection with Asia by nomadic people and have spread to the west and south of Egypt. However, archaeological findings led to the new theory that there was an African centre of domestication in the Sahara from southern Libya and north-western Niger to southern Egypt (MacDonald, 2000). Further genetic studies also suggested that the present-day humpless cattle populations are so divergent from similar cattle populations of Europe that separate domestication could have occurred in Africa (Bradley and Loftus, 2000). This was supported by the genetic evidence from Hanotte et al. (2002), which also indicated an exogenous but minor genetic influence of non-African origin from Europe and /or Near East in the breeds of north and northeast of Africa as well as localised areas of southern Africa. These African taurine cattle were also influenced by a slow genetic introgression by the zebu cattle (Bos indicus) of Asian origin. There are now convincing genetic and archaelogical evidences for the domestication within Africa of these African taurine cattle breeds. The Humpless Longhorn group of cattle breeds are at present represented by two breeds – the N’Dama and the Kuri, though the two breeds are quite distinct in their morphology (Rege and Tawah, 1999). Growing compelling evidence for its tolerance to trypanosomosis. The N’Dama plays an important role in tsetse-infested regions of west and central Africa where other breeds of cattle, particularly European cattle, cannot survive.

Who knows?  Maybe that is why everything is organized in a cyclical manner.  Maybe the most high never intended that any one group of people conquer the entire world.  Maybe that is why no civilization has been able to last throughout time, and continue to subjugate others even in its own natural climate and time zone.  We are so interested in conquering all, including outer space, believing we may one day rule even the heavens.  Just like with all living things, there appears to be a season for all.