Malcolm X Statue2

Since at every moment the odds in favor of the continuity of life on earth are so minute, a sweeping generalization is justified. The truth is that all odds are against us, against life.  The fact that you are conscious at this moment, in some place right now, does not in the least negate that proposition.  Chance rolls that way because that is the nature of chance.


It is the nature of chance to prevent life and to kill whatever life which by chance has come to exists. For, chance produces nothing.  And what we call change is no more than the desolation of all things into nothingness. So, to engender life and then to trust the hands of chance to be the cradle for life is to give to life no chance at all.  The hand of chance rocks us all on the edge of a steep precipice.


Like gulls nested upon a rocky cliff we are nested in life not by our own will but by a fortuitous mix of circumstances. We, a singular form of life on earth are like loose strands of thread dangling on the fabric of nature.  As loose strands of thread are to a piece of cloth, life is an oddity among oddities wherever it is found.  There, at the very extreme edge of that great chain of being, human life is forever pregnant with tragedy.


Tragically, moment by moment, we cling tenaciously to what we think ‘is certainty’ only in the end to find hopelessness.  All the while in our hopeless state we are conscious of the overwhelming pain caused by anxiety which streams unendingly through our bodies. No respite do we have from it when we are bound to consciousness, and no respite do we have even while liberated in that free space we call sleep.


Our anxiety is amplified when we find that neither consciously nor in sleep can we know where we are nor can we know the time wherein we live. For example, our rulers appear straight but are crooked and are applied on curved surfaces. The compass needle shows to us direction but the truth is that it is bound by the power of magnetism outside of which the needle would lie motionless and thus rendering the compass useless to us.


Our predicament only underscores how very lost we are, for we cannot even say that we are going in circles.  To quell our agitation we commit ourselves to myths and conjectural interpretations as though there is something in them to intellectually grasp. But all we find are empty spaces and we are left with empty minds. That is the enigma.


Chance has no inherent purpose yet we continue to explain its meaning and attempt to articulate it. We have spoken across the ages in many languages about the enigma of chance; and we have written on miles of parchment uncountable sentences only to grow the enigma of chance. From the first page to the very last, we have covered on those same parchments oceans of ink with our musing, as would a painter on a canvas, of countless inferences about the perplexities of this enigma.


Yet, on every page what is reflected back onto our faces are nothing more than the deep dark shadows of worthless ink stains. Within their deeply furrowed groves we find nothing germinating which could yield to us something about our chances.  So then what good does this agitation do for the mind?


We do so love to reason on the enigma of chance and we never tire of doing so but always we are led to one conclusion. Every person is singularly the most unlikely being to have ever existed on earth. And all the spermatozoa which did not unite with egg and to fruition roll in sum are singularly the most likely outcome of an ejaculatory shot into the darkness of a womb.


Yet, from such wombs we are pulled out one after the other.  We are birthed into the world in the role of the most unlikely form of life to have ever come to be on earth ‘by chance’. We compete one against the other for a place in the sun.  And compete we do though the back-drop to our lives provides no answer to the question: whence came I?


We have no answer to that question because chance, like an accident, inheres in itself no destiny or fate toward which it rolls. It is not even directed by the force of gravity.  It has no inherent nature to fulfill at all and so why would we have a purpose? We having been only a shot in the dark of our mother’s womb are born into the constancy of ignorance.  And so we find only futility in our search outside the endless chain of material effects for a reason for our being here because there is an utter absence of any meaning for accidents.  But perhaps in moments of clarity we grasp the idea of hope and wonder about it.


Is it conceivable that chance may roll its own demise? Can it roll its own conversion?  And if that be true then there may be that least likely accident; there may be a manifestation of an infinitesimally improbable and inherent contradiction in chance itself.  


Thus, life, human life, though an accident may bow up against chance as its only possible contradiction. Might we peak the thought that human life is the probability that chance will cease to govern the natural order arbitrarily and that instead there will be some reason which may forever contest with chance for supremacy over the universe? Is it the possibility of the impossible?


The inconceivable contradiction of chance that it would manifest its opposite by accident; that chance would by accident face in the infinitesimally improbable mirror of a human mind its own desolation by the light of reason was inevitable.


That inevitable accident that chance would cancel out itself may not answer the question ‘whence came I?’ but it will answer the question ‘whither go I?’  


If chance and the human mind are mutually exclusive powers then the act of reasoning amid the desolation of all things into nothingness must be the medium by which we are drawn into what is rational. And if what is rational is in opposition to the hot hand of nature which is the instrument of chance it follows necessarily that what is rational is to some degree supernatural. We are thus forced to conclude that the supernatural exists and that it exists for us.


And so our minds now clothed in and shielded by the reflected images of the natural world will deliver what is essential in us into that which is supernatural and into participation within the Divine Mind which governs it.



Names of allah

Malcolm Little was faced with a compelling question.  It might have been formed into this question: ‘Do I have an essential identity?’ Or the question may have been formed in this way: ‘Am I that same African?’ He knew that the name ‘Little’ came from someone who owned one or more of his ancestors? He had learned from his father that he was a descendant of slaves.


 But how could he go about answering those questions? His surname (Little) was but a livestock property tag; a name derived from a slave owner. He could not do a family lineage study because there were no records he could research which would lead him back to that African’s name. Birth and death records for slaves were not kept.



That African was thus just an ‘X’ in Malcolm’s mind. Despite that as time passed he overcame the practical problems associated with identifying his family lineage. Malcolm filled the void with the study of the science of anthropology and genetics.  This became his fascination.


Turning one dog eared and yellow stained page after another, book after book, both thick and thin until his eyes burned for lack of both adequate light and closure he read on.  Finally his research uncovered names. He identified two thinkers whose books were like lanterns, illuminating for him a narrow path which if he thought deeply upon might lead him to answers to the questions which fueled his sleepless nights. Those thinkers were Charles Darwin and Gregor Johann Mendel.  Both men had provided light in a tunnel of darkness and had altered the current of modern thinking on the origins and nature of human beings. 


By the time Malcolm had came to understand, the theories he’d discovered by Darwin and Mendel had been manipulated by other men. Leading anthropologists and biologists had made profound changes to the way scientists thought about the ‘Genus Homo’ especially ‘Homo Sapiens Sapiens’.  There had also been changes in the way scientists thought about other genetically related hominids such as Neanderthal and their particular genetic relation to some human groups in Europe and Asia. They developed their own hypotheses about our origin from common ancient mammalian and ultimately reptilian species; and, our genetic relation to other animals.  More importantly, scientists were putting the pieces of a complex puzzle together to form a picture of how we have been able to morph and extend our ‘genetic plasma’ through time and space.  


Charles Darwin published: ‘The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life’ in 1859.  His basic hypothesis is that natural selection is the mechanism by which some species of animal come into being and survive environmental changes while others become extinct. Over time that process results in the presumed evolution of more environmentally adapted species. Darwin’s ideas of competition for resources and mating opportunity, ‘fitness’ or the number of offspring generated by a male and female over the course of their life-time, adaptation, and mutation underscored an idea from Heraclitus: “There is nothing permanent except change.” and that those life forms which cannot change successfully in relation to material changes to their environment will at the very minimum suffer and at most they will become extinct.


Malcolm in his pursuit of understanding must have discovered that Darwin’s theory of natural selection had social as well as moral consequences. That was important to resolve because Darwin’s theory had been interpreted into a social theory of change by Herbert Spencer; social Darwinism came to dominate the interpretation of human worth based upon the thesis: Only the economically fit should survive in society. 


While in prison, Malcolm must have mulled over the consequences of manipulation and the application of Darwin’s theory to social structures and social relations.  Social Darwinism had become an entrenched social theory by the 1940s in most universities throughout the U.S.  Before the great depression of 1929 to 1941 when social Darwinism was wedded to Adam Smith’s theory of unregulated capitalism. This union of thought and practice was used to rationalize the impoverishment of millions but also to support the unequal distribution of income amongst 1% to 20% percent of United States the population.


Malcolm understood that social Darwinism rationalized the extreme disparity caused by 1% of the population taking 27% of national income in 1929.  Such inequality was rationalized by the argument that those at the bottom of the social hierarchy are ‘naturally selected’ to be poor because they are less adapted to the social changes caused by industrialization in the early 20th century. 


Malcolm understood that proving the assumptions wrong may not be the problem. He recognized that even if the assumptions of social Darwinism are proven wrong, if they are ‘believed’ to be true by those who wield power and control over the superstructure of society then the next step is the institutionalization of those beliefs. This happens through a massive social infrastructure. Finally, the machinery of society plays it out and that causes social consequences along a path predetermined by groups in power. 


Those social consequences had manifested during the depression of the 1930s. In the 1930s, thousands of men, women, and children starved to death on the streets and in alleys. Millions of others were reduced to the humiliation of begging on the streets of large and small cities and towns across the United States. The social Darwinists argued that such poor deserved their condition because ‘only the strong survive.’


Though Darwin’s theory had flowed beyond its zoological landscape and onto the social landscape it would fall upon Gregor Mendel to unlock the laws of biotic extension over time and space.


Gregor Mendel wrote ‘Experiments on Plant Hybrids’ between 1856 and 1863.  From Mendel’s experiments, ‘Punnett’s Square’ was derived. Mendel’s experiments were rediscovered in 1900.  For Malcolm, Punnett’s Square was a good study because not only was it foundational to the field of genetics but because of its arithmetic simplicity. Malcolm learned it quickly.  Mendel’s hypothesis involve simple relations between chromosomes.  The basic discovery by Mendel revealed that the physical characteristics of parents and ancestors are heritable according to a very predictable law of probability.

punnett square

Mendel’s discovery led Malcolm to one undeniable conclusion. Malcolm’s study answered his own question: ‘Am I that same African?’ His answer would necessarily be, yes, ‘I am that I am’.  Genetically, Malcolm was a DNA link. He was but a DNA link which spanned backward in time and space. He was preceded by every person in a complex tapestry of lineal ancestry dating back millions of years and perhaps even encompassing millions of planets in the Milky Way galaxy.


But even more importantly, Malcolm no doubt came to know that he was a created soul. He no doubt came to understand something more. Though he was but a link in a chain of DNA which stretched back billions of light years in space and time, he saw his existence in a higher light. He saw that at the end of that chain his body, dangling, held down on the floor of this world as would an anchor hold in harbor a ship, so, too, his body anchored his soul to this foreign mindscape. At the end of his logical reasoning to infer his true identity, the facts, one upon the other and all true, constructed like a long spiraling stairway led him up to an undeniable truth. That truth he discovered was that he was a reflection in this world of the Mind of God.  




Welcome To Earthcolony.net – Heroes or Villains? – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney, Political Economist


What is going on with these police officers?




There has always been police corruption; however, what is surprising is how we continue to rely upon them mistakenly believing they are actually protecting us.  Police are just highly paid security guards.  They are not necessarily good or bad people.  We hold them in too high esteem.   Let’s face it, it is a good paying job, with good benefits.  They are not necessarily heroes or villains.  




When they have too much power, they can become corrupted and full of themselves, just like Adolph Hitler, Napoleon, and even any President of the United States.




We are too trusting as people, and we base out trust in police in what news reporters and pubic officials mislead us into believing about them.   Any and everyone should always be cautious and look with suspicion upon anyone we do not personally know well, or come to trust based upon our personal experiences. 




The first thing out of our mouth when we are in crisis should not be: “[C]all the police!”




A San Jose police officer is currently charged with forcible rape.  Geoffrey Graves, 38, has been a cop for six years.   Someone placed a call into the police for domestic violence.  This officer arrived to investigate.   He recommended that the woman leave and go to a hotel until things quieted down between she and her husband.   He and another officer drove her to the hotel.  One of the officers cut out, and minutes later, supposedly Graves who remained at the hotel located her room and engaged in sex with her while he was on duty.  Purportedly his DNA was on the woman.  The woman claims it was forcible rape.    Santa Clara County deputy district attorney Carlos Vega said: “Unbeknownst to her, she opened the door. She was asleep, and that’s when he let himself in and forcibly pushed her on the bed.”




However, regardless of whether it was rape or not, this officer had no business alone in a hotel room while he was on duty and having sex with a customer, victim, or what have you.  He was supposedly sent on this call to protect someone during a domestic dispute.  This is a job, supported by taxpayer dollars. 




The victim purportedly didn’t report the incident for three weeks, and when she did, she went to the California Highway Patrol, not San Jose police.  So now the woman does not feel comfortable calling the City police. 


The newspaper says: “We’ve been through hard times.  The department now faces the challenge of restoring public trust.” 



I apologize, but who has not been through hard times?   What trust should we have in a human being with wants, hopes, and desires like everyone else?  It is like we are supposed to believe those old hero stories of good versus evil.  When you call the police, keep it professional.  Don’t get overly friendly.  Don’t let them get out of line.  Ask for identification.

In the back drop of this story, over half of the King City Police Department, and some of the highest ranking officers are being charged with some sort of conspiracy or scheme to impound vehicles illegally.



Sgt. Bobby Javier Carillo, 44, of Soledad, who impounded hundreds of cars, allegedly earning a free car for every 10 to 15 he towed. He is charged with conspiracy, accepting a bribe and bribing an executive officer.


Acting Chief Bruce Miller, who allegedly received one of the cars from Carillo, knowing its source, is charged with accepting a bribe. Brian Miller, the chief’s brother and owner of Miller’s Towing, charged with conspiracy to commit a crime and bribing an executive officer. A public official charges former chief Dominic “Nick” Baldiviez, 49, of Bradley, who is charged with giving a city-owned car to officer Mario Alonso Mottu Sr. Both with embezzlement. Flippo said two other officers were charged with felonies discovered during the ongoing investigation that were unrelated to the bribery and embezzlement case. Officer Jaime Andrade, 36, of Soledad was charged with possession of assault weapon and illegal storage of a firearm. Officer Mark Allen Baker, 44, of Paso Robles, was charged with threatening violence on a local resident. Each was booked into Monterey County Jail, where they posted bail ranging from $10,000 to $60,000. Sheriff Scott Miller said the officers were processed at the jail but never housed with the general population. The officers are on paid administrative leave.







Five San Francisco police officers and a former officer are under federal indictment for civil rights and other corruption violations, with two charged with stealing money and drugs seized as part of investigations.   The officers, based out of the department’s Mission Station, were identified as Sergeant Ian Furminger, 47, of Pleasant Hill; Officer Edmond Robles, 46, of Danville; and Reynaldo Vargas, 45, of Palm Desert, California.



On March 2, 2009, the officers took items they seized during an arrest, including a $500 Apple gift card, according to the indictment.  Two days later, prosecutors said, Vargas used the gift card to buy an iPhone and iPod Nano.


In a separate incident the same month, the indictment says, the officers took marijuana. Vargas is accused of delivering the pot to two informants and asking them to sell it and split the proceeds with him, Furminger and Robles.



We should stop blaming the police.  We should use our common sense and judgment and realize that police are just regular people.   Some say, it is not like the old days when you could trust a cop.  However, people in power, including the police have always taken bribes and used their positions and influence to obtain favors and other unwarranted benefits.  Gangsters purportedly had police and judges on the take during prohibition.    During the 1970s and 1980s police were purportedly confiscating tax-free drug money from the kingpins to finance extravagant lifestyles.



Let us use our intelligence and good judgment.    




Welcome to EarthColony.net: THE I.Q. ANALOGY, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Book Cover Earthcolony

Aristotle’s influence on Western Culture and particularly on American secular society is so substantial that one can say without reservation that we live in an Aristotelian society.  His theories pervade every aspect of our social institutions.  We operate educationally on the basis of his scientific assumptions.  The founders of the United States were all educated within the framework of Latin, Roman law, and the Greek Classics and thus our constitution is an articulation of his theory of democratic government along with some Roman civil law.[1]


In the previous chapter, we noted Aristotle’s definition of ‘Man’: ‘Man is a rational animal’. That definition abounds with implications. For, it is the rational animal that breaks away from his wholeness with nature. It is the rational animal who in so doing sets in motion an infinite series of derivative divisions within himself which in-turn fractures his vision of nature into segregated illusions of oneness.  It is the rational animal that is thrown out of oneness and who can never again grasp his common denominator with all in all.  But where does this take us?


It takes us to Aristotle’s fundamental assumptions which support his theory of development.  His argument that what brings matter into existence and what maintains it as an ‘actually’ existing thing in relation to a ‘potentially’ existing thing necessarily determines social arrangements between all creatures. The unavoidable conclusion is that since Aristotle defines human beings as rational animals, then rationality is that instrument by means of which social hierarchy is politicized to sketch out and measure differences of all sorts between people.[2] 


For Aristotle, there is a ‘natural’ division between human beings which is similar to the division between inorganic and organic matter. It is that there is a division analogous to the division between non-rational animals and rational animals. Within the rational animal category he states that there are lines which segregate humans into different classes, statuses, gender roles, and roles.


At each degree up and down the social hierarchy there is a ratio of greater or lesser ‘intellectual power’ in relation to greater or lesser ‘bodily power’ for the caste or class and for each individual. This social principle is consistent with Aristotle’s assumption of the ratio of potency to actuality (p:a).  It is the capacity and ability to reason and what is more, to reason with foresight. It follows, therefore, that Aristotle concludes that socially, some are fated to be despotos (dictator) and others doulos (slave). [3] 


For Aristotle the superiority of reason is manifested as social advantage for some persons as opposed to disadvantage for others. Aristotle supports this premise with his observations taken from the natural environment. For example, mating competition between animals is the most striking example of the natural dominance of some over other persons. The greater aggression of some makes them rulers while others are naturally subordinated to them.  So pervasive and consistent is this pattern in the natural order that Aristotle defines it as a law of nature or ‘necessity’.[4]  That thesis leads him to the next inference. As a law of nature, it must be manifested in the complex of greater and lesser social statuses possessed by human beings, too.  And, again, Aristotle finds its manifestation described as a ratio of greater or lesser intellectual power in relation to greater or lesser physical power.  He rationalizes social inequality by saying: “It is thus clear that, just as some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves and for these latter the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just.”[5] 


What would crystallize from this line of reasoning and be drawn on throughout the following two thousand years of anthropology is the ‘I.Q. analogy’. Aristotle states it thus: “…all men who differ from others as much as the body differs from the soul, or an animal from a man…all such are by nature slave,…”[6] Slavery is not only natural it is just and beneficial for  slaves.


This rationalization would be espoused many times in the ante-bellum south of the United States to justify the enslavement of Africans.  Eventually, it would also manifest in other derivative anthropologies and finally it would serve as a conclusion of   eugenics.[7]  But Aristotle does not stop there, he goes on further to develop his argument and so we too must go on tracing over his thoughts as they meander through his lectures and writings. 


Not only does Aristotle make the argument that there are natural intra-group divisions marked by higher or lower intelligence, but there are inter-group divisions marked by the same types of intellectual divisions.  He calls them ‘natural characters’. His hypothesis is that geography and climate are associated with the moral characteristics of a people.  But each human group he argues is divided in two different ways, first, as ‘ethnos’ or culture, and secondly, as ‘genos’ or race.


He says that the nations inhabiting the cold regions are not so intelligent though they possess a strong will.  He then says that the nations of Asia are intelligent, but lack will.  These people, he says, are suitable as slaves.  He finally says that the Greek ‘genos’ (race) participates in both intelligence and ‘will’ and that this is so because it occupies a middle geographical and climatic position. 


He concludes that the Greeks are capable of ruling all mankind.  But he adds something which underscores his definition of genos; he says that the various Greek cultures when compared to one another manifest the same differences as do the Asiatic and Northern European peoples in comparison to the Greek genos.[8]  Such would ultimately be called the ‘master race’. 


The institutionalization of Aristotle’s theory in modern form combined with the two primitive human insecurities, i.e., sexuality and fear are the reasons for human aggression and the varied assortment of vices such as greed.  All of this can be summed up in one word: ‘evil’.  And there is no innocent party. For both the dictator and slave reverse roles through the course of history and are locked into a perpetual embrace as they act out the dance of mutual malevolence.    






[1] Aristotle, Politics

[2] The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Nicholas Lemann; Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2000

[3] Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, Chapter 1, 1252b: “The element which is able, by virtue of its intelligence, to exercise forethought is naturally a ruling and master element; the element which is able, by virtue of its bodily power, to do what the other element plans, is a ruled element, which is naturally in a state of slavery…” Adopted from: Great Books of The Western World

[4] Aristotle, Politics, book 1, chapter V, subsection 8: “There is a principle of rule and subordination in nature at large; it appears especially in the realm of animate creation.”

[5] Ibid, 1255b

[6] Ibid, Book I, chapter V, subsection 8

[7] Classification of Men According to Their Natural Gifts, by Francis Galton

[8] Ibid, Book VII, adopted from Aristotle in twenty-three volumes, XXI Politics, Translation by H. Backham, Harvard University Press, CambridgeMassachusetts, London, England, 1932