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


He is just a man

Is Barrack Hussein Obama the Anti-Christ? Can White racism, American Zionism and Politicized Judeao-Christian denominations find yet another moral low to sink to?

I am no Obama supporter. Rather, I strongly lean toward Constitutional Libertarianism and ideologically I am an inclusive separatist or secessionist. 

I also personally lean towards the negation of nonsensical manmade law(s) that do more harm than good. Instead, I am for the re-establishment of God’s laws as the social standard for all secular laws.

However, purely for the purpose of venting, this must be stated because it is undeniably true. Barrack Hussein Obama has drawn disproportionately racially motivated types of negativity and criticism purely because he is “THE” visible Black face in the Whitehouse.

Can anyone reading this recall any other U.S. President being equated with the Anti-Christ and taken out of the presidential context more often than Barrack Hussein Obama?  I’ll wait.  I am willing to bet that if he was behaving like his Democratic predecessor “Sweet Dick Billy” who seemingly has been given a pass for his continued behaviors along with that crooked wife (Hillary Clinton), the world would never hear the end of it and everybody knows it.

I do not recall criticism on “Biblical” proportions of any other President in my lifetime. In fact, did anyone equate President Harry Truman in 1944 to that of the “Anti-Christ” for his approval and first use of two atomic bombs on the mainland populace of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan? No, I don’t recall reading anything nearly that sinister or nefarious about President Truman.

For the greater white Zionist establishment, I guess seeing a black face in “THE” leadership position of “their” country could be equated with the end of the world as they know it or would imagined it to be. 

Other presidents have faced their share of scrutiny and that is unquestionable, but nothing like the scrutiny President Obama has been subject to. Other Presidents have authorized acts of violence worldwide with a deafening roar of approval or often times in complete silence while they themselves were oblivious to the sentiments of the populace at large.

In fact, in 1999 one of the largest bombing campaigns in US military history occurred during the Clinton Administration without U.N. Security Council approval and nobody seems to remember or give a damn about that! It was ironically called operation “Merciful Angel”. This name was later blamed on a “misunderstanding” or a “poor translation” at the hands of the Yugoslavian officials and I have yet to hear even ONE conspiracy aficionado say Boo!

Nearly 85,000 soldiers including 40,000 in and around Kosovo were killed.  In Albania, over 500 civilian deaths including the deaths of Chinese journalists in the Chinese embassy by the U.S. led NATO bombing campaigns during the Clinton Administration. I never once heard a name or an equating of “William Jefferson, Clinton” with that of the Anti-Christ when death was delivered wholesale on his watch under the title operation “Merciful Angel”.

Do you think I’m kidding?  Perhaps you should have lunch with some of my Bosnian and Serbian friends and let them tell you all about it. In fact according to eye witnesses, the “reported” civilian death tolls were much higher than what was actually reported. 

American double and triple standards along with its selective reprimanding of other leaders and governments is sickening both domestically and abroad.  And some proponents have the audacity, “the nerve” even to speak, to wrap themselves in Zionist flags and to speak in nationalist or religious overtones in the name of the Most High God who holds all might and majesty. At the end of the day, it is but a veiled attempt by them to shield their racial prejudices and bigotry. It is a slap in the face to everything Jesus preached and stood for and to all of the prophets that predated him.


Welcome to EarthColony.Net: The Myth of Noah’s Curse, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Book Cover Earthcolony

Chapter 3

Friedman puts the epic of Noah and the Great Flood in Genesis under both the ‘J’ (Yehweh) and ‘P’ (Priestly) accounts.  The two accounts have two or more different authors and as a result the two stories differ in many respects.[1]  For our purpose it is important to note that in the first story or the ‘J’ (Yahweh) account there is no mention of Noah’s sons by name.  However, in the second account or the ‘P’ (Priestly) account circa 485 B.C.E. there is mention of Noah’s three sons by the names of Ham, Shem, and Japheth.[2]  One can clearly see that the two stories were written by two different authors.  In one story, Noah sends out a ‘black raven’ to determine whether the flood waters had subsided; in the second account, Noah sends out a ‘white dove’ to see if the flood waters had subsided.  Further, in the ‘J’ and ‘E’ account, Noah takes a pair of each species of animal whereas in the ‘P’ account, he takes seven pairs of each species of animal.


There is another problem with the Noah epic; circa 2650 BCE an earlier epic called Gilgamesh had already been written. It, too, had a flood account.  It also has a ‘Plant of Life’ analogous to the Genesis ‘Tree of Life’ in the ‘P’ or Priestly account of the Garden of Eden.  The geographical origin of the epic Gilgamesh is in or around the city of ‘Uruk’ (Erech). Thousands of Jews were captives in Babylon and subsequently, Persia. They were influenced by Babylonian myths and they also restructured their religious hierarchy to conform to the priestly hierarchy in Babylon.[3]  Thus, it is reasonable to infer that probably the writers of the epic Noah plagiarized parts of the epic Gilgamesh.


In the Biblical account of the great flood, Noah is said to have cursed Ham for what ‘Ham had done to him’.[4] According to this myth the Canaanites, Egyptians, and Nubians, et al, are the descendents of Ham; the Greeks and Medes or Aryans are the descendents of Japheth; and the Semitic peoples which include Arabs and Hebrews are the descendents of Shem.  Biblicists, historians, and anthropologists would take these three proper names and divide humanity into three distinct races.  The Hamite, Semite, and Japhetic or Aryan peoples would come to represent the three racial spheres.


There was no attempt to incorporate the Asian peoples into one of the preceding categories. That represented yet another fault line in the theory derived from myth. Those classifications are not used today because modern research uncovered obvious contradictions inherent within that classification scheme. No credible anthropologist would use them because they do not conform to the root language families of Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic. For example, all of the Semitic languages fall under the Afro-Asiatic language group as defined by Greenburg, et al. The Afro-Asiatic language group includes the Egyptian, Nubian, Ethiopian, Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic as well as many other African languages.[5]  This would rule out the category ‘Shem’ leaving only the two racial categories of Hamite and Japhetic.


No one knows what Ham supposedly did to Noah. The myth does not say. Noah’s curse only says that the descendants of Ham would be servants (slaves) to the descendants of the other brothers.[6]  There are no other characteristics identified by the curse which would set the descendants of Ham apart from others. However, that would all change by the 7th century A.D. when a nation of eastern European converts to Judaism called ‘Khazars’ would limit the Noah curse to African people or ‘black’ people.


By the 7th century A.D., the Babylonian Talmud expressly identified black skin color, swollen lips, kinky hair, red eyes, and elongated male genitals as ‘signs’ of Noah’s curse.[7]   Later, in the 12th century, Moses Maimonides (circa 1135) would reinforce those characteristics when he wrote the ‘allegory of the King’s Palace’ in his book Guide for the Perplexed. He used the term Hamite and suggested that under some conditions it was proper for Jews to exterminate Muslims and Hamites (Cushites).[8] Even more, we have the first evidence of ‘dehumanizing’ language. No longer are we dealing with just a curse, but with degeneration of one group from humanity based upon their physical characteristics. This type of anthropological categorization was pervasive in the United States from its founding in 1789.  The Mormon leader Joseph Smith took it even further to the extreme when in his doctrine they associate ‘Negroes’ with Satan in a pre-earthly rebellion against God.[9]


For centuries, the Noah myth has reinforced the myth of white supremacy in the western world as well as the Varna caste system in India. It continues today in the form of thousands of stereotypes propagandized through mass media owned by the descendants of the people who originated the myth.





[1] Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible, Harper San Francisco, 1987, pp. 54

[2] Ibid, pp. 54

[3] See: Torah, Ezekiel’s dry bone metaphor. It was customary for the Persians to leave the dead in an open pit thus resulting in a dry bones burial site.

[4] “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” Genesis 9:24, 25, 26, 27

[5] Joseph H. Greenburg, The Languages of Africa, Bloomington, Indiana University, 1966; Christopher Ehret, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian) Vowels, Tone, Consonants and Vocabulary, University of California Press, Linguistics Volume 126, 1995

[6] Genesis 9:25-27, (NIV): “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers…May Cannaan be the slave of Shem…May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.”

[7]  Edith R. Sanders, “The Hamitic Hypothesis: Its Origin and Functions in Time Perspective, Journal Of African History, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 10, no. 4, 1969  Original source: The Babylonian Talmud, Sixth Century A.D.; also see: Midrash Rabbah 1:292-293, Babylonian Talmud

[8] “…I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, a mental faculty above that of monkey. But those who hold false doctrines within the country (the followers of Muhammad and the supposed descendents of Ham ) recede more as they appear to proceed…under certain circumstances it may be necessary to slay them…” Moses Miamonides

[9] “There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. …All took sides with Christ or Satan…The Negro, evidently, is receiving the rewards he merits.” Joseph Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pages 66-67

Welcome to Earth Colony.Net- MYTH OF THE METALS, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

 Book Cover Earthcolony

Hesiod’s ‘Works and Days’ (750 BCE) presents us with a mythological paradigm.  It is a poem which implies the theory that civilizations undergo a cycle of change (the Ages of Man).  As such it imputes certain assumptions about the origin of human beings, human differences, and their different moral worth.  In this chapter I will not trace its intellectual origin, though many scholars argue that it passes through the mythological figure Orpheus to the Greeks from ancient Egypt.  Plato says as much in his account of the myth in his work the ‘Republic’.[1]


What I will do in this chapter is demonstrate that Hesiod’s theory of civil change was adapted by Plato.  Now, because Plato adapted Hesiod’s theory of civil change and because Greek philosophical influence had spread throughout the Mediterranean world and Asia Minor after Hesiod’s death (750 BCE) Greek mythology had taken firm root.  There is strong evidence to support the claim that Hesiod’s myth had influence on the person who wrote the ‘Book of Daniel’ in the Torah or Old Testament.[2]  All three sources had a direct influence on early medieval and enlightenment assumptions underlying race ideology in the Western world as well on the founders of the United States and eventually on the ideologues and apologists for the institution of slavery.[3]


Hesiod admits his account to be a ‘tale’. This parallels Plato’s dialogue in the ‘Republic’ exactly, for both men admit that their account is a ‘lie’. However, taken together with his description of the ‘farmer’s cycle’ it may be inferred that Hesoid aimed to either affirm or posit that human history is cyclic in nature.  He explains the cycle of change by establishing that differences in ‘genos’ or ‘race hegemony’ is determinative of civil quality and therefore, that the historical hegemony of each ‘genos’ or race corresponds to a different human epoch or ‘Age of Man’.


He first describes the ‘golden genos or race’. In his account they had divine characteristics and lived a life of cultural refinement and ease.  This race of men did not die; rather they became disembodied or transfigured to become guardian spirits.


Next, he describes the ‘silver’ genos’ or race who were qualitatively less noble than the ‘golden’ race: ‘it was like the Golden genos neither in body nor in spirit”[4].  A major indicator of their inferiority was their life span which was significantly less than their predecessors.


Next, there was generated the ‘bronze’ genos or race.  They were mortal and ‘in no way equal to the silver age…’  However, this race was physically far stronger than any other race. They were said to be ‘terrible and strong’.[5]


Next, there was a race of ‘demigods’.  They were nobler than their predecessors because they were ‘hero-men’.  Hesiod states that this race is the race before ‘our own’ race (the Greeks).


Lastly, he describes the ‘Iron’ genos or race.  This race for Hesiod is morally corrupt by nature and is damned.  It never ceases from ‘labor and sorrow by day.’[6]


Except for the demigods, each metal corresponds to a specific moral worth.  Upon close inspection, central to Hesiod’s cycle is a description of social degeneration from the golden to the iron age with one anomalous intervening period ruled by the hero-men or demigods.  We see an analogous description of civil degeneration after Hesiod in the book of Daniel, circa 700 B.C.E, wherein the writer describes the same moral scale of worth for the metals from gold to iron and clay.[7] I claim that both Hesiod’s myth and the dream of Nebuchadnessar by the writher Daniel originate from the same source text or that the writer of Daniel was influenced by Hesiod’s poem.


Later, in the writings of Plato, Johann Blumenbach, Joseph Count de Gobineau, et al we shall see the use of the ‘myth of the metals’ to establish a ‘theory of status quo’ with race mixing as the single determinate in the degeneration of civilization from what for Hesiod is the ‘golden’ genos to Hitler’s ‘Aryan’ or white race to the ‘Iron’ genos or what Gobineau would call the ‘black’ race.  Note well the many other characteristics in Hesiod’s myth of the metals because they will become attributed to specific racial types by color in the time of the enlightenment philosophers, and eugenicists. They will ultimately  influence states’ legislation throughout the United States.



[1]  Plato, the Republic, adapted from The Dialogues of Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett, William Benton, Publisher, 1952, [403]: “In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which like Hesiod’s are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war.”  Note the near exact point made in the book of Daniel 2:31 to 2:44.

[2] The Jews were taken into captivity by several Babylonian Kings between 597 BCE to 582 BCE.

[3] Edmund Ruffin, The Political Economy of Slavery, 1853; James Henry Hammond, The Mudsill Speech, 1858

[4] Hesiod, Works and Days, 11.121-139

[5] Ibid, 11.140-155

[6] Ibid, 11.170-201

[7] Book of Daniel, 2:31 to 2:45

Misogyny and Sexism, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Book Cover Earthcolony

Chapter 4.1

Though the thesis of this book is limited in scope to that of the origin of modern racism in ancient mythology and classical philosophy, it is necessary to examine a line of reasoning that runs parallel to that of racism and is also rooted in the Torah creation mythology as well as it being rooted in Aristotle’s theory of gender differences. To examine those sources is important.  It is important for the same reasons we stated concerning institutionalized racism; that is because it, too, continues to have deep and widespread influence on the status and roles of women and the behavioral responses to women in both the western and middle-eastern worlds.  It is misogyny (hatred of women).

We have spent some time examining the ‘Genesis’ creation problem.  First it is a myth or a fictitious account of the origin of Homo-Sapiens, but though the subjects are false it is argued logically by some persons even though they have no evidence to support it as fact.  Furthermore, the creation myth presented in the Torah is inconsistent because there are two accounts of the creation of the first man and the first women.[1]  According to Friedman, those accounts were written by different persons at different times.  In chapter one, the male and female were created simultaneously: “…male and female created he them.”[2]  In chapter two of the same book, there is yet another account of the creation man and women.  This time the writer states that the first man and first women were created serially (one after the other).[3]  The fact that the two accounts are mythological does not prevent us from scrutinizing them from a sociological perspective because what we want to know is whether or not such myths are determinative in the formation of socio-economic inequality between men and women in our society today.

The woman, Eve, is made to be culpable for the fall from grace.  Her culpability is central to our analysis of the institutionalization of misogyny (hatred of women) in modern society.  Without doing a detailed analysis, let us summarize the Genesis narration. First, the woman was approached by ‘the serpent’; secondly, she took the fruit and ate it; thirdly, she was blamed by the man for having mislead him; fourthly; God blamed her for having committed an unlawful act; fifthly, the woman’s sorrows are multiplied by God including her conception and pregnancy; God further makes her subordinate to her man stating that: “…he shall rule over thee.”[4] The status and roles of women in Jewish culture conformed more or less to the expressed and implied definition of the first woman, Eve, in the creation myth.  From there and through cultural diffusion, that myth began its slow but steady progression in Europe and the middle-east through Christianity.

One very influential conduit of the myth of the divinely ordained subordination of women was written in 1486 by two Dominican Monks named Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger.[5]  The thesis of their book is that Satan exist and that through human agency good person are seduced to evil.  The book defines the procedures for carrying out torture upon suspected witches.  We will not survey the entire work. For our purposes there are several sections which parallel the Genesis curse upon women and has become institutionalized in the Western world.

Let us first cite some quotations from the book and then analyze them. First in part 1 question 6 it states: “For learned men propound this reason; that there are three things in nature, the tongue, an ecclesiastic, and a woman which know no moderation in goodness or vice…”; “What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an un-escapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colors.” And, “When a woman thinks alone she thinks evil.”;“…women are naturally more impressionable, and more ready to receive the influence of a disembodied spirit;…”; “Women are intellectually children.”; “She is more carnal than a man as is clear from her many carnal abominations.”; “And, it should be noted that there was a defect in the formation of the first women, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, a rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives.”[6]  These quotes, if believed, can compel the inference that women are defective, intellectually stunted, and distrustful.  Over time, such premises grow misogyny or hatred of women in both men and women.

The book concludes that torture is the only means by which such women can be cured of their predisposition to evil.  Here the point being made is that beating ‘evil’ women is for their own good and the good of the community.  Little wonder that well into the colonial period of American history wife beating was sanctioned at common law as a method of correction. This is evidenced by a statement by William Blackstone that it was an ancient custom which was generally accepted which permitted men to moderately chastise their wives as they would their servants or children.[7]

The Catholic Church was a major player in the establishment of the modern European western nations. Its cannon law influenced the development of secular legal institutions.  It laid the cultural foundation which gives to those nations a common identity and if not a contemporary identity then at least a historical one.  The moral values it established between the 4th and 16th centuries became institutionalized and thus came to be accepted as truth without question for many year into the 20th century.  It developed the themes set forth in the book of Genesis that women necessarily occupy a lower status and subservient roles to men and that the line differentiating the two genders must be maintained by force if necessary. Yet, there is another argument for female inferiority which originates in systematic philosophy.  To understand that argument we must turn to Greek philosophy in the 4th century B.C.

A non-Judeo-Christian element which buttressed and reinforced the creation myth in the Torah was present in Greek philosophy.  If we accept Friedman’s theory, then both the origin of Torah mythology and Platonic/Aristotelian gender views were contemporaneous in time. In the Greek philosophies, we find the first attempt to systematically present a theory supported more or less by objective evidence that women are inferior to men.  Of course, the evidence is ‘physical’ and we need only look to Aristotle to find the first inkling of what would in time be morphed into a full blown scientifically determined argument for the inferiority of women.

Now, let’s identify some of Aristotle’s theses regarding the natural and social status of women and the premises in support of those theses:  “…for the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female…”[8]; “…the one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination…”[9]; and, lastly, “For the free rules the slave, the male the female…”[10] Here is a simple sketch of gender hierarchy. Note that it parallels the Torah myth of the curse put open women: “…and thy [your] desire shall be to thy [your] husband, and he shall rule over thee [you].”[11]  What differs between Aristotle’s argument for the inferiority of women and the Genesis myth is that Aristotle ‘supports’ his theses with physical evidence.  However, they both come together in the same conclusion that a woman’s status and her roles in society are inferior to that of man by law of nature or necessity.  It can never be changed.

The physical evidence which Aristotle posits is laid out in his book: ‘History of Animals’.  Therein he lays out a biological function which relegates women to the lower tier of gender relations.  He regards menstruation as an ‘ailment’ in women. He calls it ‘catamenia’. The Greek word ‘cata’ means ‘thrown’ and ‘menia’ means menses or moon.  Aristotle’s argument for female inferiority is more cogent because he correlates a physical condition to the phases of the moon.  It is a simple model implying basic assumptions about women which will be used by modern naturalists and anthropologists to rationalize women’s less esteemed status and roles in modern society.

One modern scientist who makes a claim for female inferiority is Charles Darwin.  He states that women are analogous to lower races in that they are more emotional than intellectual. The superiority is the product of a higher intellect in man with corresponding less emotional orientation than what is in woman.  Thus, for Darwin there is a physical basis for the qualitative difference between men and women.  In fact, he says regarding woman’s intuition, imitation, and rapid perception that “…these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.”[12]  Darwin goes one step farther in his argument for a physical basis underlying woman’s inferiority to man.  Rather than resting his theory on ‘menses’ alone he joins with it specific neurological functions that are supportive of intellectual abstraction but in and of themselves are less than the intellectual power of abstraction.  He may now deduce as though following of necessity the claim: “Thus, man has ultimately become superior to women.”[13]  The political, scientific, and religious foundation for institutionalized sexism was thus established upon the basis of myth, political injustice, and pseudo science.








[1] Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible, San Francisco, Harper, 1987

[2] Genesis, 1:27

[3] Genesis, 2:7; 2:18-23

[4] Genesis, Chapter 3:16

[5] Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum, Malleus Maleficarum; The Witches Hammer, translated by Rev. Montague Summers, 1486

[6] Ibid, part 1, question 6

[7] Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765

[8] Aristotle, Politics  [BookI. 1259a1-2]]

[9] Ibid, [BookI. 1260a8]]

[10] Ibid, [BookI. v.5-8]

[11] Genesis 3:16

[12] Ibid

[13] Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and the Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex,  Chapter 19,  pp. 566-567, Published by William Benton, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Great Books, 1952