WHY I WON’T VOTE, by Dr. W.E.B. Dubois, The Nation, 20 October 1956

Dubois 2

On October 20, 1956, W. E. B. Du Bois delivers this eloquent indictment of US politics while explaining to Nation readers why he won’t vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Du Bois condemns both Democrats and Republicans for their indifferent positions on the influence of corporate wealth, racial inequality, arms proliferation and unaffordable health care.

Since I was twenty-one in 1889, I have in theory followed the voting plan strongly advocated by Sidney Lens in The Nation of August 4, i.e., voting for a third party even when its chances were hopeless, if the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, voting for the lesser of two evils. My action, however, had to be limited by the candidates’ attitude toward Negroes. Of my adult life, I have spent twenty-three years living and teaching in the South, where my voting choice was not asked. I was disfranchised by law or administration. In the North I lived in all thirty-two years, covering eight Presidential elections. In 1912 I wanted to support Theodore Roosevelt, but his Bull Moose convention dodged the Negro problem and I tried to help elect Wilson as a liberal Southerner. Under Wilson came the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that we had experienced since the Civil War. In 1916 I took Hughes as the lesser of two evils. He promised Negroes nothing and kept his word. In 1920, I supported Harding because of his promise to liberate Haiti. In 1924, I voted for La Follette, although I knew he could not be elected. In 1928, Negroes faced absolute dilemma. Neither Hoover nor Smith wanted the Negro vote and both publicly insulted us. I voted for Norman Thomas and the Socialists, although the Socialists had attempted to Jim Crow Negro members in the South. In 1932 I voted for Franklin Roosevelt, since Hoover was unthinkable and Roosevelt’s attitude toward workers most realistic. I was again in the South from 1934 until 1944. Technically I could vote, but the election in which I could vote was a farce. The real election was the White Primary.

Retired “for age” in 1944, I returned to the North and found a party to my liking. In 1948, I voted the Progressive ticket for Henry Wallace and in 1952 for Vincent Hallinan.

In 1956, I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a “Socialist” Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform. If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist” and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.’s and “Liberals” are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly.

The present Administration is carrying on the greatest preparation for war in the history of mankind. Stevenson promises to maintain or increase this effort. The weight of our taxation is unbearable and rests mainly and deliberately on the poor. This Administration is dominated and directed by wealth and for the accumulation of wealth. It runs smoothly like a well-organized industry and should do so because industry runs it for the benefit of industry. Corporate wealth profits as never before in history. We turn over the national resources to private profit and have few funds left for education, health or housing. Our crime, especially juvenile crime, is increasing. Its increase is perfectly logical; for a generation we have been teaching our youth to kill, destroy, steal and rape in war; what can we expect in peace? We let men take wealth which is not theirs; if the seizure is “legal” we call it high profits and the profiteers help decide what is legal. If the theft is “illegal” the thief can fight it out in court, with excellent chances to win if he receives the accolade of the right newspapers. Gambling in home, church and on the stock market is increasing and all prices are rising. It costs three times his salary to elect a Senator and many millions to elect a President. This money comes from the very corporations which today are the government. This in a real democracy would be enough to turn the party responsible out of power. Yet this we cannot do.

The “other” party has surrendered all party differences in foreign affairs, and foreign affairs are our most important affairs today and take most of our taxes. Even in domestic affairs how does Stevenson differ from Eisenhower? He uses better English than Dulles, thank God! He has a sly humor, where Eisenhower has none. Beyond this Stevenson stands on the race question in the South not far from where his godfather Adlai stood sixty-three years ago, which reconciles him to the South. He has no clear policy on war or preparation for war; on water and flood control; on reduction of taxation; on the welfare state. He wavers on civil rights and his party blocked civil rights in the Senate until Douglas of Illinois admitted that the Democratic Senate would and could stop even the right of Senators to vote. Douglas had a right to complain. Three million voters sent him to the Senate to speak for them. His voice was drowned and his vote nullified by Eastland, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was elected by 151,000 voters. This is the democracy in the United States which we peddle abroad.

Negroes hope to muster 400,000 votes in 1956. Where will they cast them? What have the Republicans done to enforce the education decision of the Supreme Court? What they advertised as fair employment was exactly nothing, and Nixon was just the man to explain it. What has the Administration done to rescue Negro workers, the most impoverished group in the nation, half of whom receive less than half the median wage of the nation, while the nation sends billions abroad to protect oil investments and help employ slave labor in the Union of South Africa and the Rhodesias? Very well, and will the party of Talmadge, Eastland and Ellender do better than the Republicans if the Negroes return them to office?

I have no advice for others in this election. Are you voting Democratic? Well and good; all I ask is why? Are you voting for Eisenhower and his smooth team of bright ghost writers? Again, why? Will your helpless vote either way support or restore democracy to America?

Is the refusal to vote in this phony election a counsel of despair? No, it is dogged hope. It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own accord and not because of a sly wink from Khrushchev, this might make the American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest. Yet if we protest, off the nation goes to Russia and China. Fifty-five American ministers and philanthropists are asking the Soviet Union “to face manfully the doubts and promptings of their conscience.” Can not these do-gooders face their own consciences? Can they not see that American culture is rotting away: our honesty, our human sympathy; our literature, save what we import from abroad? Our only “review” of literature has wisely dropped “literature” from its name. Our manners are gone and the one thing we want is to be rich–to show off. Success is measured by income. University education is for income, not culture, and is partially supported by private industry. We are not training poets or musicians, but atomic engineers. Business is built on successful lying called advertising. We want money in vast amount, no matter how we get it. So we have it, and what then?

Is the answer the election of 1956? We can make a sick man President and set him to a job which would strain a man in robust health. So he dies, and what do we get to lead us? With Stevenson and Nixon, with Eisenhower and Eastland, we remain in the same mess. I will be no party to it and that will make little difference. You will take large part and bravely march to the polls, and that also will make no difference. Stop running Russia and giving Chinese advice when we cannot rule ourselves decently. Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have. Democracy is dead in the United States. Yet there is still nothing to replace real democracy. Drop the chains, then, that bind our brains. Drive the money-changers from the seats of the Cabinet and the halls of Congress. Call back some faint spirit of Jefferson and Lincoln, and when again we can hold a fair election on real issues, let’s vote, and not till then. Is this impossible? Then democracy in America is impossible.

 

THE CAPITALIST MYSTIQUE, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Greedy Capitalist Pig

Historically, African, Latino, Asian, and Native Americans have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous economic fortune in the United States. Africans were enslaved; Latinos’ were victims of larceny in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and were economically exploited under the Brocero program of 1942; Asians’ land and property was taken in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution; and criminal larceny was committed against all Native American tribes . We could go on but just these few facts reveal something very important.

Let’s face an undeniable fact about the theory of capitalism. Capitalism is not natural law; it is a theory. A rational theory differs radically from a ‘law of nature’. A rational theory is imperfectly applied to ever changing circumstances whereas natural law is constant.

The law of gravity, for example, is a claim that asserts a direct relation between the sum of masses and an indirect relation to their distance from one another squared. Gravity has been proven to exist naturally by experimentation.  It holds true everywhere in the known universe according to astrophysicists. The gravitational relation between masses is not guided by an ‘invisible hand’ in the universe not even the hand of God.

Capitalism on the other hand is not natural, it is artificial.  Capitalism is a rational belief system; it is guided by human hands.

The theory of capitalism is the brain child of Adam Smith.  Adam Smith was not a scientist; Adam Smith was an ethical and economic philosopher.  If you have gone to college then you know that your first course on economics taught you some fundamental assumptions about the market place as it is assumed to work in an open market. First there is supply and demand. 

Understand that there is no ‘natural relation’ between the supply and demand of goods and services. That is because according to Adam Smith, both supply and demand are mediated by an ‘invisible hand’ in the market place. Supply can be anything natural or artificial and demand may or may not exist from moment to moment or even from season to season because it depends on human choice. So, the relation between supply and demand is a game of chance; it is not universally constant as gravity is.  Your best example is the depression of the 1930s.

Furthermore, you were taught something about the value assigned to goods and services that are distributed to you through the market place.  You were taught some other correlations. You were told that as demand for goods and services increase there is an increase in their ‘price’ or value, but that if the supply of goods and services is greater than demand for them then prices for goods and services will decrease. Do you remember all of those red, green, and black curves in the book!

Here is something you probably came to understand while taking notes in that class. One, the course was taught like it was physics when it was presented to you. That is the ‘mystique’ of the system as presented to you.

And two, if there is an ‘invisible hand’ manipulating the supply of goods and services in the market place by reducing production of goods and rolling back services or increasing them, then prices can be manipulated to go up or down at will. Therefore, capitalism is not natural law; Capitalism is an art.

If capitalism is an art then it can be done away with and replaced by another kind of economy or it is a system which can be adjusted depending upon human needs under any given circumstance at any time. What that means is that our priorities must be rearranged. 

Which is more important?  Do human beings collectively and individually have greater value than the market place or do the products in the market place have greater value than the human beings who made them? I think you know the answer to those questions. 

History suggests that in each generation some people are recruited and socialized to think illogically about the value of all human life. They arrive at the conclusion that they are inherently better than other people and indeed the total environment.  We have evidence to prove that. 

America was founded upon capitalism. Any serious student of the United States Constitution knows that.

We Americans know that during the era of slavery, indentured servitude, and later under ‘Jim Crow’ and ‘share cropping’ in the southern states, the exploitation of others’ labor was qualified as more important than human rights.

So we know that pure capitalism can place the market place above entire ethnic and gender classifications of human beings as a more important priority. That very qualification which capitalism implies is that without capitalism a quality life on earth would not be possible.  That is a lie and here is why it is a lie.   

It we follow the logic of that propaganda then what kind of justice would we be compelled to validate?  If justice has to do with how, when, where, how much, and to whom we distribute benefits to people in society then by our sentiments and actions we are certainly not validating equal justice because in our market place the ‘invisible hand’ has caused extreme inequality of resource distribution in the United States and all over the world. Most people have barely enough to subsist on or nothing at all.

The ‘invisible hand’ is the hand of exclusion. It pushes some people away from the fruits of their labor and allows others to indulge in fruit that they do not deserve.

In fact, the invisible hand may be a metaphor for ‘power’.  If that is so, then the market place is tied to instinctually based anxieties which give rise to conscious rationalizations for discriminatory use of power by the haves against the have-nots.

Capitalism is used to justify the discriminatory use of state power.   The ‘invisible hand’ snatches from most people their time and energy used to produce benefits and gives to a minority of other people benefits they do not deserve.  

Market place exclusion by the ‘invisible hand’ is the result of intentional injustice. That kind of injustice is criminal. It is criminal because it is intentional and because it wrongs human beings and more generally it wrongs nature so that a few people can control and benefit from all of the wealth produced by the majority of people. That kind of market place is not the result of natural law.

If we do not follow the logic of that kind of propaganda then what kind of justice would a more precise of kind logical reasoning compel us to validate? 

If justice has to do with how, when, where, how much, and to whom we distribute benefits to in society then a more just society would result from the application of proportionate justice. That would be a form of justice predicated on a person’s belonging to humanity not on an artificially measured kind of worth.

Proportionate justice is a method of distributing the values of society according to what a person deserves as a result of his or her own efforts in his or her life time. We do not have such a system of proportionate justice in the United States.  We do not have a system of justice based upon merit. For example, most wealth in the United States is inherited wealth.  Twenty-seven (27%) percent of all wealth in the United States is inherited by 1% of the population or wealth is owned by corporations or some form of government. 

And here is yet another example. Most African Americans are the descendents of slaves.  Slave labor was exploited to build up the capital base of the United States. But the descendants of slaves have not been given any financial proportionate justice in the form of reparations to them for unpaid wages justly due to slaves during slavery.

As a consequence, the total average amount of wealth owned by African Americans today in the United States is about $4,000.00 dollars compared to Euro-Americans’ average of $88,000.00 dollars.  African Americans were cheated by a capitalist market place wherein they do not get proportionate justice.

It is amazing that right wing conservatives in the United States will criticize the theory of evolution but cannot tolerate criticism of the theory of capitalism. Evolution assumes that change is inevitable while the one percenters struggle to prevent change.

 http://www.spreaker.com/user/themalcolmxsociety/what-is-the-state-of-your-mind

Welcome to Earth Colony: SLAVE MORALITY v. MASTER MORALITY OR NOT OF GLORY BUT OF GREED

John Brown, pic EC

John Brown was a great man. He was an abolitionist in the pre-civil war United States.  He eventually came to understand that Christian religious/moral arguments against slavery would never be persuasive to slave owners and their states to stop the institution of slavery. Nor did he believe moral arguments could cause an anti-slavery amendment to the U.S. constitutional because Congress could never meet the required 66% ratification of both houses of Congress or 66% of the States because of greed.

He also came to understand that logical arguments based upon the Enlightenment premise that each person has inherent natural rights and that each person must be presumed reasonable would not be persuasive to the slave owners, their states, and the massive economic infrastructure which had grown dependent upon slave labor for national economic prosperity, either.  He understood that race ideology was a tool used to short circuit logical reasoning so as to create straw man arguments based upon the premise of white supremacy.

John Brown was compelled to reach one conclusion.  It would be necessary for African Slaves to fight their way out of slavery by any means necessary.  With that thought in mind, John Brown and some of his sons seized a U.S. military armory.  They then called on neighboring slaves to fight their way out of slavery side by side with them.  The slaves refused to do so.

Some of the slaves informed on him.  The others refused to stand and fight.  John Brown fought the U.S. Army. Most of his sons were killed. He was wounded and captured. He was hanged on December 2, 1859.  But he stated in his last words that only a bloody war against the slave owners and their states could free the slaves.  He was right.  The Civil War started in 1861 only two years later.  Over 600,000 people died in just four (4) years.  It was a savage blood bath.

I do not mean to belabor you with so much history; but history is so important for an understanding of present social circumstances. What people did and thought in the past should be studied. Note, the slaves wouldn’t fight and note some of them informed the plantation owners of John Brown’s plan.  Can we identify the same patterns today?  I answer yes. However, first we must examine some of the most influential thoughts on population of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. These are thoughts which every African American should know and understand.

MASTER MORALITY

thomas malthus

THOMAS MALTHUS

The method to reduce birth rates of poor populations was devised centuries ago. Thomas Malthus wrote a book entitled: ‘Essays on the Principle of Population’ in 1798. In that book he laid down a theory.  He said that population will grow indefinitely because people have an automatic sex drive which causes them to reproduce offspring and because people need to eat food. He stated that unless there are checks and balances in the environment to stop it population would grow unabated.

What should be of concern to African Americans is what Malthus identified as a method to decrease the birth rate of an unwanted population.   He termed it ‘Preventative’ checks on population growth.  It originates as political policy.  As such the sentiment and laws of the general public promote and execute such method as a matter in the interest of the state.

By the ‘Preventative’ method to decrease a population’s birth rate he said that two general political policies must be executed among the lower classes.

The first, he said, must be a policy to institute ‘vice’. Vice would constitute the social encouragement of uncivilized habits combined with poverty.  For example: discourage good hygiene, make them live in neighborhoods that are polluted areas of a given city with narrow streets making them more vulnerable to disease and or physical disability, provide less habitable dwellings than needed by the them so there is homelessness, make available to them low paying jobs, discourage them from marriage, make their schools dysfunctional, provide small portions or cheap low quality food, allow prostitution, make criminal acts a more likely choice for the young especially the males, and introduce communicable diseases into their population .

The second policy under the ‘Preventative’ method, he said, should be ‘misery’. Misery would constitute psychological depression, low self-esteem, suicide, and institutionalized hopelessness.  Misery would follow as a byproduct of the first policy. If executed as a matter of public policy, each of the two types of ‘Preventative’ methods would decrease the birth rate of a given population over time.

Charles Darwin

 CHARLES DARWIN

Charles Darwin wrote: ‘The Descent of Man’.  It was published in 1871.  As you can see it follows in time Thomas Malthus’ book who in turn followed Adam Smith’s cornerstone theory on capitalism: ‘The Wealth of Nations’ (1776).  These writers signaled the birth of a new world view.

Darwin theorized that in nature animal species compete with different species and with others in their own species for resources of every kind.  Even when there are plentiful resources greed or the fundamental insecurity of an animal will drive it to take everything for itself.  For Darwin, conflict is one of the driving forces of animal and therefore human history.  History for him is not of glory but of greed. He stated that racial extinction is the result of inter-racial or tribal competition for resources in times of plenty and scarcity.[1]

Darwin predicted in ‘The Descent of Man’ that ‘race’ war is inevitable and that in the future lower races will be exterminated by higher races. This is a population issue because for Darwin genocide is natural not criminal. The law of nature that he describes can reduce a population by increasing the death rate due to war with another group of people or animals. He also said that it is just as illogical to breed defective people as it is to breed defective animals. Please, bare with me, this is very important for you to think on.[2]

 Galton

FRANCIS GALTON

Arguments for the application of Preventative population control through state power was triggered by the Eugenics movement.  Francis Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton wrote the book: ‘Hereditary Genius’. In that book he theorized that intelligence is a heritable genetic trait like hair color, skin color, and height and that it is passed down from one generation to a succeeding generation.  He argued that there should be selective breeding.  He invented a mathematical method to prove his theory of inherent intellectual differences between races.  His statistical method is called the normal distribution curve and the difference between means.[3]

With that method, he argued that races have different naturally determined levels of intelligence, physicality, and sexuality.  From that argument he founded the theory of Eugenics and the Eugenics movement.  The basic premise of the Eugenics’ theory corresponds to that of both Malthus and Darwin.  He argued that there should be political policies which restrict the reproductive opportunities of lower races and genetically defective people.  In the United States for nearly 80 years many states enacted laws which vested the state with executive power to sterilize women and to castrate men who were deemed genetically unfit.[4]  Such state eugenical laws were supported by the Supreme Court ruling in Buck v. Bell, 1927.

Margaret Sanger

MARGARET SANGER

Galton’s theory gave rise to early 20th century birth control organizations like the ‘American Birth Control League’, its spin off: ‘The Negro Project’, and today, the ‘Planned Parenthood Federation of America’.  It was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921. Margaret Sanger believed in White Supremacy.[5]

Her husband William Sanger was Jewish by birth but was not his religious practice as an adult man. He and Margaret were both Communists.  It’s important to know their political and philosophical beliefs because as Communists they believed in an inherently amoral universe. One structured by natural law as argued by both Darwin and Galton.

She targeted African women in Harlem, New York, through the ‘Negro Project’ clinic; she also targeted other minority ethnic women and men to reduce their number of pregnancies and thereby their birth rate.[6] She argued that ‘dysgenic’ groups like African Americans had two choices. They could either choose segregation or sterilization.

She organized at a time when the poor and/or immigrants were crowded into cities but in a nation where there was no scarcity of land, food, and other resources in the United States.

The basis of her argument to women was that having too many children was unhealthy and would cause a shorter life-span.  And to both men and women her argument was that they could not financially afford to care for too many children.

She did not address the extremely unequal distribution of income which existed at that time in the United States. At that time 1% of the U.S. population took home 28% of the national income.  Nor did she target the wealthy that were called the gilded class as being exploitative of the poor.

She didn’t target the wealthy because the wealthy were funding her birth control clinics.  Familiar names to students of the international banking system are listed.  John D. Rockefeller who if you recall was one of the founders of the Federal Reserve Bank and Income Tax acts of 1913; Julius Rosonwald of Sears and Roebuck, Company; Clarence Gamble,  founder of Proctor and Gamble; and the Ku Klux Klan were all financial donors of her organization.

Her ideas were a direct offshoot of Malthus, Darwin, and Galton.[7] However, her interest was not in theory. She moved to institutionalize their ideas into state and federal law. She appealed to women’s moral sensitivity because she argued on the premise of a moral argument, i.e., a ‘women’s right to choose’ when in fact she did not believe in essential morality of any kind.  She argued it at a time when women were generally abused in society. She was for them what Paul was to Christianity.

Black Flag spray

      APPLICATION OF THE MASTER MORALITY

Now, let’s look at some facts and ask ourselves: could the target population for preventative political policies Thomas Malthus wrote on in his book be us?

In 1954, the Supreme Court held in ‘Brown v. Board of Education…’ that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. It signaled the beginning of racial integration of public facilities in the United States; it initiated the legal movement against ‘Jim crow laws’ premised upon ‘separate but equal’.

That same year (1954 to 1960) the birth rate of African American women was 4.5 births per woman. Thereafter, their birth rate started to go down such that by 1970 it was 3.0 children per African American woman ages 15 to 45.

By 1975 it was 2.5.  Today, 2013, the number of babies per African American woman between 15 and 45 is 1.9.  That is a 50% decrease over 55 years.  That amounts to a one percentage point decline per year from 1954.  At 1.9 babies per woman, for the first time African Women are not reproducing enough babies to replace the current population of 42 million.

Why is this happening to us?  One reason is that the Federal Drug Administration approved the birth control pill in 1960.  We see a negative correlation between the increased use of and marketing of birth control pills and a drop in the African American fertility rate.  That is a fact.

Was the marketing of the birth control pill a racist reactionary response to the civil rights movement and racial desegregation? A correlation does exist but it doesn’t prove causation; it could simply be a coincidence. But another Supreme Court decision might move us to a cogent inference.  It was Roe v. Wade, 1973.

Roe v. Wade was premised on the proposition that a woman has the sole individual right under the U.S. constitution to determine whether or not she should or could carry her pregnancy to term. She needs not to legally consult with anyone. She could act on her own individual needs and wants. However, the court did impose a time limit.  She must decide to abort the fetus within the first trimester (3 months) of her pregnancy.

The abortion statistics are startling.  Since 1973, African American women have constituted 32% of all abortions while constituting only 3.5 percent of the total population.  That amounts to over 22,000,000 abortions.  It equals 70 abortions per hour nationwide as of this writing. The 22,000,000 (million) abortions is three (3) times more than the number of Baby Boomer African Americans born between 1946 and 1964.  It is one-third (1/3) of the total number of people killed during World War II.  It is a slaughter.

Does what we have described conform to the Preventative Method proposed by Thomas Malthus?  Remember, he argued that there must be political policies in place to decrease the birth rate of unwanted populations of people. Infanticide or abortion was one of his proposed methods to kill those who are unwanted.

Malthus also argued that unhealthy social conditions ought to be intentionally constructed to demoralize an unwanted population of people.  He argued that unwanted people should be made miserable. Are there other socio-economic conditions which are evidence of the application of his method on African American people?  Let’s list some social conditions to see.

Given that racism is a social construction it follows logically that most misery suffered by African Americans is a derivative of institutionalized racism.  So the following conditions are social constructions for the most part just as the misery of Native Americans (birth rate of 1.4) is a derivative of reservation (concentration camp) life.

  1. African Americans are disproportionately poor at about 27% of the total U.S. population.
  2. About 15 million African Americans live in urban ghettoes.
  3. The national high school dropout rate for African Americans is 42%.
  4. Between 1976 and 2010, there were 273,366 African American ‘black on black’ homicides; that averages to 23.9 homicides per day nationwide.
  5. African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to murder their infants as compared to other ethnic groups and lead the nation in infanticide.
  6. There are now over 200,000 African American children in foster care homes.
  7. Between 1973 and 2013 there have been approximately 22,000,000 African American abortions; that number equals 1,687.5 abortions per day.
  8. The top ten leading causes of death are: heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, unintentional injuries, kidney disease, chronic lower respiratory disease, homicide, infection, and Alzheimer disease.
  9. Nearly 1,000,000 African American men and women are incarcerated in city, county, state, and federal jails and prisons.
  10. About 1 out of every 4 (25%) are in the criminal justice system.
  11. The African American national unemployment rate is about 13% to 20% for the year 2013.
  12. About 9 million African Americans receive food stamps or put another way, 1 out of 3 Americans on food stamps are African American and they are primarily women with dependent children.
  13. Approximately 72% of all African American births are to single parent female headed households.
  14. The highest annual death rate per 100,000 at 898.22.
  15. 85% of ‘Planned Parenthood’ clinics are in low income neighborhoods.

I think the evidence is compelling. The social conditions which pressure a population’s birth rate to decrease are fundamental conditions to the life of the majority of African Americans.  Therefore, a cogent conclusion can be drawn.

Probably, birth control pills, abortion law, over the counter sales of Depo-Provera, Norplant, and Lunelle are primarily aimed at African American women and girls.  The purpose in this early part of the 21 century differs from that of the last part of the 20th century in four important aspects.

Automation used in factories in the United States to eliminate the need for people, the exodus of capital (factories overseas) to Asia, continuous civil rights demands on governments by some African Americans, and the aging of America resulting in a larger dependent population are collectively making African Americans more than ever before a dependent population.

These four facts make African Americans an economically unwanted population. No longer cheap labor and not withstanding their high consumption capacity of 1 trillion dollars spent per year much of which is just Federal and State money going back to Federal and State governments they are perceived as what Henry Kissinger called ‘useless eaters’.[8]

The cost to maintain African Americans is high. For example a cost of 16 billion dollars per year for food stamps; another 40 billion dollars per year on incarceration costs; 154 billion dollars in welfare costs are just a few costs which the plutocrats calculate eat away at the 1 trillion dollars spent by African Americans annually. Furthermore, most of that 1 trillion dollars is spent in ghetto neighborhood stores, fast-food outlets, and quick loan and check cashing outlets.  For 60 years it has been a continuous ‘quantitative easing’ monetary disbursement by the U.S. Treasury Department. Add to that the fact that racially African Americans are generally unwanted in the U.S.  We are perceived as a greater cost to the plutocrats than we are a benefit to them.

John Brown discovered that slaves would not fight to save themselves. He discovered that the condition of slave misery permeated the consciousness of African people. They identified themselves as slave; theirs was a slave morality. John Brown was hanged under the rule of master morality.  You better wake up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Darwin, Charles, Chapter 7, The Descent of Man, published 1871

[2] Ibid, Chapter 7

[3] Galton, Francis, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, Published, 1883

[4] Laughlin, Harry, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, Pub.1922

[5] Sanger, Margaret, Pivot of Civilization, published, 1920

[6] Sanger, Margaret, A Plan for Peace, published, 1932, pp. 107-108

[7] Sanger, Margaret, The Pivot of Civilization, Published, 1920

[8] National Security Council, Washington D.C. 20506, April 24, 1974

(For Criminal citations see: Bureau of Justice Statistics: Homicide Trends, by James Fox)

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

Book Cover Earthcolony

15.2

CHARLES DARWIN: FRUIT OF A POISONOUS TREE

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

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

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

[6] Ibid

[7] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776