THE NEW FRANCE, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

maroon-hanging

The demographic changes occurring in Europe are not the result of an invasion by Muslims and other peoples of the old colonies of Europe. Those demographic changes are the result of an invitation extended to people of the old European colonies to fill the population vacuum of a dying Europe.

When a nation’s birth rate falls below 2.1 babies born per year for women between the ages of 15 and 45 that nation is in decline and will eventually cease to have the power to resist its collapse. Such a collapse is analogous to the breakdown of the body’s immune system. That is what is happening in France throughout Europe and in the United States.

‘Necessity is the mother of invention.’ Pragmatists understand that principle and work within its context. What nations like France are forced to do is to import people from its old colonial possessions in Africa and the Caribbean to fill the vacuum caused by its declining fertility rate.

The declining fertility rate is occurring because French women like most women in the Western World have opted to have careers, to not marry, and to not have babies or if so to have one baby out of wedlock.  Thus, with an aging population and with too few young people in the active population to support its aged and child populations France is pinned in a corner. French leaders and demographers know something which they are not communicating to the French people.

France must change if it is to have a viable economy. Demographers know that it is Muslim and other ethnic minority women who are keeping the French fertility rate from complete collapse. Those women are giving to France a demographic transfusion so that France will not die. Thus, France has pulled its last colonial card. That card is to exploit the fertility of its minority populations so that France can live.

The fact is French culture has changed; France is France only in name.  It like most Western Nations today  is still enraptured by its past; it is driving along the freeway of history looking through a small rear view mirror like an aging movie star and fails to look forward to see through the wide front window at a picture of the new France down the road.

The fact that a large percentage of those imported people are Muslims is a testimony to what many historians have observed to have happened over and over again throughout history. Ancient Rome is the classic example. Greed and war drove Ancient Rome to death. And what eventually filled the vacuum created by the collapse of Rome was Islam.

The old colonies of the French Empire where purposely economically repressed and kept backward as they are today kept in national debt by the world banking establishment. All those tactics were done so that the old France could more easily exploit them economically. For the French then their motto was ‘party over here!’.

‘Now the chickens have come home to roost.’ The French people must now invite an invasion of their nation for the sake of its national survival and there is no way out unless it chooses to scale down its economy and become a European backwater nation.  But the ruling elite of France will not choose that option; France wants to continue in the global economic competition for supremacy. France has its pride, but pride goeth before a fall.  For that reason France will be humbled; France will accept a new culture as its national identity.

http://www.spreaker.com/user/themalcolmxsociety/judge-not-by-appearances

Welcome to Earth Colony.Net: CONTINENT X, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Africa

The ‘Afrocentric’ paradigm laid down by Dr. Molefi Asante is ideologically illusory.[1] There is no ‘circle’ which bounds the place he identifies. And thus there is no center. It is a thesis intentionally and negligently supported by numerous false premises.  All of those premises have been and are now proffered as facts, but such are in fact false.

 

For those reasons the implication in the basic assumption of ‘Afro-Centrism’, i.e., that descendants of slaves in the America can find, experience, and express a higher ethnic unity by means of his ideology is impossible. It therefore must be rejected as a logically defective ideology. 

 

Such fallacious arguments have been and are promoted by scholars such as Dr. Molefi Asante of Temple University, Philadelphia. He does not live on the continent of his ancient ancestors but rather he lives here in the United States. 

MICRO NOT MACRO

 

His central thesis is that ‘Africa exists’. He does not address that in his definition of Afrocentricity.[2] But the truth is that ‘Africa’ as a concept does not correspond to anything which exists objectively.  The term ‘Africa’ has no existential import. That is because the continent designated ‘Africa’ was named by Europeans after a Roman military general named ‘Scipio–Africanuus’ (236-183 BCE). Therefore, we cannot affirmatively quantify the concept of ‘Africa’. We can only qualify it by saying that ‘Africa is not’. The Continent has a slave name. It is Continent X.

 

Thus, their adoption of the moniker ‘Afro-Centric’ and then making the argument that ‘African’ names adopted by descendents of slaves in the Americas are a sign of being a member of a universal culture is wrong. In truth, scholars such as Dr. Molefi Asante are instead using Afro-Centrism as a wedge to further divide and confuse the descendents of ex-slaves in the Americas. 

 

Dr. Asante’s effort to propagandize the ideology of Afrocentrism also indirectly collaborates with European culture. Dr. Asante cannot support an ‘African’ unity because the subject of his ideology does not exist. However, what Dr. Asante does do indirectly is to celebrate a Roman invader of an ancient Canaanite (Black) nation and thus celebrate western dominance over the people of the continent he purports to love.  

 

The designation of the continent as ‘Africa’ and the categorization of all persons living within its geographical borders or who are living in the Americas and descended from people living within its borders  as ‘African’ is based upon the false premise that people living on the continent have  a universal identity. 

 

On the contrary, people living on the continent do not have a universal set of socio-economic interests, values, and perspectives above that of the necessities of life. The truth is that there is no evidence to support the claim of a universal identity on the continent.

 

Family and tribal sentiment are the historical basis for individuals’ self concept and cultural identity on the continent. Family and tribal sentiment is generally the basis of cultural identity on the continent today. Descendents of slaves in the United States do not share any of the myriad sentimental attachments to values, interests, and perspective of the people living on the continent.

 

Furthermore, the geopolitical fact is that all of the 55 nation states  on the continent are based  upon European colonial political structures and thus do not even rationally reflect in their codified law and higher educational institutions the local cultural sentiments of the people. The continent is fractured into uncountable pieces with very few strings of attachment.

 

That fact is most evidenced by the many different indigenous languages spoken within the borders of the many so-called nation states on the continent. If the continent were divided along linguistic lines instead of those boundaries superimposed by colonial powers from the 15th to 20th centuries there would be over 2000 independent nations.

 

The truth is that those colonial ghost states are now ruled by dominant tribes and the elite families within those tribes and finally by European and United States military and economic interests. Those same dominant tribes have adopted French, English, Italian, Portuguese, or Arabic (except for the Eritreans and Abyssinians) as their national languages because there has been no universal language ever adopted by Black people on the main continent. White supremacist ideology dominates the whole continent because indigenous leaders can do nothing significant for their people without the approval or support of a Western power.

 

The same argument can be made regarding traditional religious practices on the continent. Dr. Asante’s claim that: “All people create their religions out of their histories.” is false. Again he violates the logical rule of existential import. It is only true that some people create their religions out of their histories. Some other religions claim their creation outside of human history. The two differing claims are essential to understanding why parochial religious beliefs and practices are diminishing in the face of both Christianity and Islam. It is because both Christianity and Islam are universal in scope and yet are elastic enough to be adapted to any culture. But let us look at it another way.

 

If the continent were divided along traditional religious lines there would be as many nations as there are clans.  That would make a universal identity on the continent impossible because the uncounted local religions do not have the potential for universality. 

 

The Kingdom of Aksum is a case in point. There the religion of Christianity was established by decree of the Negus Ezana of Aksum beginning in 330 A.D. From that date Aksum, later called Abyssinia, maintained a stronger cultural unity because of the popular sentiment for the universalism of Christianity. That country remained more unified than any other culture on the continent and was not colonized by a European power until the 20th century. In short, divide and conquer didn’t work against them because of their greater cultural unity.

 

Tribal religions on the continent, though they are ancient, have always been and are parochial or clannish in nature. Furthermore, they have no written religious texts and thus have linguistic and geographical limitations which make them lack the potential for a universal scope of appeal.

 

Some may argue that ancient Kemet did have universal concepts which embraced all those who lived on the continent and even humanity.  However, that is a false premise, too.  There is no evidence that the people of ancient Kemet invited other people living on the continent and outside their culture to the east, south, and west of them to share with them as members of their culture.

 

One possible religious exception may be argued. The Pharaoh Akhenaton did establish a monotheistic religion not created by his peoples’ history but rather born out of a non-historical visionary experience. But he was murdered by the parochial priestly class. The priests wanted to maintain their status, power, and privilege within their parochial religious practices. That historical fact simply proves the point that parochial traditional religious practices on the continent lack the elasticity to provide a universal identity for the people on the continent. 

 

 

MORE PROOFS NEGATING THE AFRO-CENTRIST IDEOLOGY

 

This leads us to yet another argument made by Dr. Asante. He argues that Arabs and thus Islam enslaved Black people on the continent because of some defect in the religion of Islam and hatred toward Blacks. There are several logical inconsistencies to his argument. Let’s look at some facts one at a time.

 

First,  Blacks conquered Arabs and enslaved them prior to the advent of Islam. For example, Abyssinia extended to the whole of the Hejaz and the Yemen on the day of the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) birth.

 

Secondly, dominant Black tribes made war with and took prisoner Black people from weaker Black tribes and then sold Black people to Arabs. That occurred before the advent of Islam as well as after the advent of Islam. It is a myth that the different tribes on the continent lived in peace for over 60,000 years. The different cultures did not live in peace for thousands of years before there were Semitic people.[3]

 

Thirdly, Dr. Asante denies that Arabia is a peninsula of Africa. That it is a peninsula is a geographical fact. That means that Arabia is a part of the continent. Furthermore, it is a fact that the people living on that peninsula are either Black people or descendents of Black people who migrated out of Africa over 50,000 years BCE. That migration hypothesis is supported by DNA evidence. Thus it is proof that Black people made war with each other long before the advent of and during the rise of Islam in the 7th century A.D.

 

Fourthly, Dr. Asante does not accentuate the role played by dominant chiefs who bartered with both Arabs and Europeans for the sale of Black people as slaves. But it is a historical fact that the interior of Africa was generally impenetrable by both Arabs and Europeans and that but for the assistance of dominant Black tribes on the continent who saw profit to be made by helping slave traders most Black people would not be in the Americas today. Before white supremacy had been internalized by indigenous people, tribal chiefs opened the doors to white supremacy without a fight.  

 

The fact those dominant tribes had no indigenous religious texts rationalizing slavery for profit does not negate the behavior which evidenced the practice of enslaving Black people as an acceptable value in tribal business affairs.

 

It was Black people who lead the slave traders through the interior to capture Black people on both the east and west coasts of the continent. It was Black people who lead David Livingstone to H.M. Stanley on the Zambezi expedition and to the source of the Nile River.  

 

Today it is Black people who are allowing the resources of the continent to be hauled away outside the continent by pirate nations. It is Black people right here in the United States who work to thwart the progress of their own ethnic members for monetary reward. House Negroes all as Malcolm X would say!

 

The fundamental assumption underlying Dr. Molefi Asante’s Afrocentric ideology is like a glass marble which when held up to the eye can be seen to have a crack running dead through the middle of it. It is defective and can only lead to a chain of defective inferences.  It therefore follows necessarily that his whole ideology is inconsistent with the rules which govern sound and cogent thinking and should be rejected by anyone who aspires for truth and justice.


[1] Afrocentricity: The Theory of Social Change (Revised and Expanded), by Molefi Asante, pub. African American Images, Chicago, Illinois, 2003

[2] Afrocentricity: The Theory of Social Change (Revised and Expanded), by Molefi Asante, pub. African American Images, Chicago, Illinois, 2003,

[3] See the Pluvial Period of the continent

FROM THE BOOK: THE SYLLABUS OF MALCOLM X, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Malcolm X

FREEDOM BY NEGATION

Bimbi operated a machine that stamped a different identification number onto each license plate that rolled down the conveyer belt in the prison factory. Each number was unique even though it was stamped upon the same kind of state plate. Eventually, each number would come to be identified with the characteristics of a car and its owner.

Day after day, as he worked on the conveyer belt line Malcolm would listen to Bimbi. He would wonder to himself about the strange man speaking on “odd subjects.” He was awed by what he described as Bimbi’s mastery of words and the total respect his intelligence commanded from everyone.

The conveyer belt would stop sometimes. Then inmates and even guards would gather around Bimbi’s dimly lighted station. Each would listen intently to Bimbi to discern the words and statements he expressed to them.

Malcolm would listen attentively, too. He watched as others put focused attention upon Bimbi. But while watching he came to understand that each man perceived Bimbi’s speech differently. Though each word Bimbi uttered made identical percussions upon their ears, those same discrete sounds when strung together into statements and then set down side by side to each other became step planks, or were like fine tones fleeing the constraints of their bars and notes. One after the other they would spiral upward to a dizzying height and took each listener on a different trip far away from prison.  Was this simply music he heard? Or was it what thought is?

But Malcolm wondered how could this be? How could Bimbi speak to all and yet at the same time to each man each of whom spoke a different dialect? It was like seeing a bright beam of light refracted through a prism into countless colors. Each color suited to the particular mind it penetrated. Bimbi then turned and looked at Malcolm face to face and spoke to him. He spoke to Malcolm the atheist. Bug-eyed, Malcolm listened.

Bimbi was free in his speech. This was so even though his free speech flowed forth and out of a sequestered body. But there, in prison, it was a true paradox for this man to be so free in his speech yet bound and gagged by society.  Yet, it was not an incomprehensible paradox for it was because Bimbi’s mind was free. Thus what gave his words freedom of flight were the fine unfettered logical threads which wove them together in a mind undaunted by incarceration.  His was a mind in negation. Malcolm must have pondered whether negation was that mysterious power in the mind which like some kind of dark energy levitates consciousness beyond its natural context? A mind in negation is what makes a person free.

There was such clarity of meaning and graphic imagery incased in each sound.  But Bimbi was not religious. He was not a Pagan, a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or an animist. But neither is God religious. God does not pray; God does not seek himself in the confines of a building; God does not do ritual; in fact God is unlisted. But given all that God is not, God is freedom and so too was Bimbi free.  And in that unspoken relation of negation and freedom there was an odd relation to that which Bimbi had.

Malcolm wanted to be free too and if there was a way out of the box he wanted out. He understood that it would have to be by negation not affirmation. He thought then and there that it had to be the way to freedom expounded upon by Bimbi. Malcolm knew that if he could be free there in prison then he could be truly free everywhere and at all times.

Every person is inherently rational and perceives through the agency of their mind and by the exercise of some degree of reason what reality is not.  The problem of knowledge is to eliminate perception and in so doing disappear false assumptions and the shallow frivolous thoughts out of which our perceptions are born. We can see reality as it is in itself by negation so that we can be propelled into the depths of our mind to affirm our true self. That is difficult to do for many reasons. For example, within the context of our human life, we perceive God as a problem to be solved. But what if God is not contextual?  If that be so, then it is not God that is the problem; so, the problem is us.