THE ARAB WORLD IS A GHETTO, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

rebel eating heart

The picture above is a Arab eating the heart of another Arab in Syria. Arab people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, are living ghetto lives.  From Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Bahrain, Jordan, to Palestine it is the same life condition for Arab people.  That kind of life is exactly what the Plutocrats of the West have wanted for them.  It is not my intention to denigrate the Arab world.  I have been to the Arab world many times and I have always enjoyed Arab people and their unique cultures.  My statements are based upon historical, economic, and social facts.

And it may very well be that time has run out for Arab people to save themselves because the context of human life on our planet is changing. For global climate change is now ushering in before Arab peoples a whole new set of problems for which they are not in the least equipped to deal with and as a consequence will cost Arab nations millions of lives in the 21st century.

There are both internal and external causes for the Arab tragedy.  Some of the internal facts are political in nature and some are cultural in nature.  Since the eradication of direct colonial rule, Arab nation states have not grappled successfully with the complexity of neo-colonial control of their natural resources and governments.  Nor have Arab governments been successful at meeting the cultural challenges posed by the West.  The Arab world looks Arab but it is increasingly not Arab.

In fact, in hindsight, it would have been economically and culturally better for Arabs to have remained a part of the Ottoman Empire until they were absolutely unable to do so.  But such a strategy in 1914 would have required Arab leaders to do a rigorous cost benefit analysis of the long term consequences of siding with Great Britain against the Ottomans particularly as it relates to their natural resources.

Arabs’ failure to unite under Islam prior to colonialism and then later in the 20th century under nationalist secular principles evidences the very poor decision making skills of Arab academics and their egomaniacal leaders. Thus Arab leaders, time and again, have not been good at rational decision making at the global level and so now they lay prostrate before the West. All of their wealth can be taken from them at the snap of a plutocrat’s finger sitting somewhere in a New York bar.

Besides western colonial control of Arab territories after the first and second world wars, there was also one other external reason for the ghetto life of Arab people today, particularly the Palestinian people.  That was the colonization of Palestine by European Jews beginning in 1920s and later the establishment and recognition of the State of Israel in 1948 by President Harry S. Truman.

Since then the Palestinian people have been systematically excluded from their own land very much as Native Americans were excluded from their land and put on reservations under colonial policies of the United States.  In both instances rationalizations were necessary to justify the claims made by colonial predators that they deserved what they by acts of larceny took from others.

But Arab leaders then could not see nor exercise the foresight necessary to preempt the colonization of their land by a people who simply said that the land belonged to them as stated by their own writings in their Torah which claimed to be the words of God.


However, the real theory upon which the state of Israel is based stemmed from a secular political theory proposed by the person above, Theodor Herzl, in 1896.  Herzl was born in Austria- Hungary. He spoke German. His book was entitled: ‘The Jewish State’.  The ideology defined in the book is ‘Zionism’.  Herzl’s basic premise was that: “Universal brotherhood is not even a beautiful dream. Antagonism is essential to man’s greatest efforts.”   He argued that European Jews “…must take possession of the new Jewish country by means of every expedient.” He further states that Zionists: “…should form there a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.” These ideas and others expressed by Herzl define him as a white supremacist.


The world has stood by and watched as Palestinians have lost most of their land to Israel.  As Zionists progressed in their expansion into Palestinian land they ignored United Nations resolutions which asserted the rights of Arab refugees to return to their lands and homes by forcibly preventing Palestinians from doing so. Israeli behavior toward Palestinians evidences the kind of racism at the core of Zionist Israel and their support for the apartheid government of South Africa until its fall.

President Harry Truman did not like Israel or Jews. He probably had cold war strategy in mind when he recognized Israel.  He planned to use Israel as a post to secure middle-east interests against the Soviet Union. It is highly unlikely that Truman liked Jews.  After all, Truman applied for and paid $10.00 to become a member of the Ku Klux Klan in 1924.  The Ku Klux Klan denounced Jews as much as the Nazis.  Nevertheless, Truman set in motion U.S. policy toward Israel for the next 60 years.

Israel Has Nuclear Weapons

nuclear explosion

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy put pressure on Israel to stop its nuclear program.  Israel didn’t stop.  It is probably because Kennedy reasoned as did Truman that Israel with nuclear weapons and an ally of the U.S. was a threat to the Soviet Union. So, in 1962 Kennedy ordered an inspection of Israeli nuclear facilities. The inspection was done by two European born Jewish physicists. The facilities were approved by them and the Kennedy administration.  Today, Israel has nuclear weapons and given the irrational nature of their beliefs they would use them.

No nation, not even the United Nations, will question the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel let alone call for multilateral nuclear reactor shutdowns or disarmament.  Instead, Israel claims that Iran’s possession of nuclear facilities is a threat to the region. The fact is that Iran has not preemptively bombed nor invaded any other nation in the middle-east whereas Israel has preemptively bombed Iraq, Syria, a U.S. naval vessel, as well as having invaded Lebanon. Israel is the most militarily aggressive nation in the Middle East. In fact, if you count assassinations then Israel is the most militarily aggressive nation per capita in the world.

Israel is a Welfare Queen

israel is a welfare queen

The reality is that Israel has been one of the tools used by the West in the Middle East to ghettoize the Arab world and control all natural resources.  In return Israel gets from the United States under President Bush 2007 to 2018, a $30 billion dollar military aid package. Plus the U.S.’s right to store military munitions in Israel. Without U.S. money, the Israeli economy would collapse. Israel is exactly what Theodor Herzl described it to be in his in his book ‘The Jewish State’, a whore for the Western powers.



One reason why is that Zionists in the United States have very strong lobbies. One example is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC.  AIPAC is a lobby that was founded in 1951. On paper it is worth about 70 million dollars. It commands politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties to get approved by it. Large sums of AIPAC money come from persons holding dual U.S. and Israeli citizenship. That foreign involvement represents a breach in the American democratic process and thus a breach of trust in the selection of senators, congress persons, and presidents.  For example, in 2005, a pentagon employee with access to top secret information pled guilty to passing military secrets to AIPAC employees.

AIPAC Picture

Another reason is that the United States is dependent upon foreign natural resources like oil and minerals in both Africa and the Middle East. Those resources are vital to U.S. high tech industries especially now as the U.S. competes with China for contracts with African nations.  Israel facilitates covert operations for the United States to secure African natural resources by violating international law.

And finally, Zionism is simply racism and racism is inevitably destructive to humanity.  That Zionism was intended to be racist was clearly asserted in the writings of Theodor Herzl at the turn of the 20th century.  That Israel is a Zionist state is irrefutable. Read their new loyalty oath.

Death Camp

death camp 2

Herzl had no idea in 1896 that by incorporating white supremacists’ beliefs into a cheap copy of white supremacy and calling it Zionism it would turn out to be the very ideology used by Nazis to murder Jews for being Jews during world-war II. And how does Israel logically distinguish the picture above from the picture of massacre at Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon (below) in 1982? One was caused by the Nazis and the other was caused by Israel. There has yet to be a Nuremburg trial for them.

Death Camp

Shatila and Sabra

History does repeat itself more or less.  The Jewish scholar, Moses Maimonides, in his book ‘Guide for the Perplexed’ is proof of that. He also sanctioned the genocide of African, Arab, and Turkish people because they are racially on the ‘pale of humanity’.  Herzl didn’t get it there nor did he read Martin Luther’s book ‘The Jews and Their Lies’.  The destructive evidence of racism was all around him.

I think it goes without saying what our United States government has and is doing to people in the Muslim world. President Obama is quoted as having said that he is:”…really good at killing people.” So was President Bush.

While Israel is in its destructive mode, it will be the Arab people who continue to suffer and die in their ghettos as the world stands aside and looks on. It just simply may be too late to alter their course of history.






Welcome to EarthColoney.Net: “…IF ONLY THEY KNEW THEY WERE SLAVES”, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

 Book Cover Earthcolony

Traceable through the history of western and middle-eastern intellectual work  is a particular line of reasoning about humanity based upon race.  That line of reasoning stems from a set of assumptions about humanity and social hierarchy. They have been and are destructive to the inherent dignity and rights of all human beings.

In this book I will, in the following order, cover its ancient historical roots in Torah mythology, Platonic mythology and philosophy, Aristotelian anthropology and philosophy, and Enlightenment anthropology.

All four of those sources and the hinge assumptions they turn on have turned into powerful modern theories which have become inextricably embedded into our modern social structures, statutes, court decisions, social policies, and individual and collective subconscious.  Indeed, those assumptions are the skeletal system of our society while government is the muscle.

harriet tubman

More specifically that particular line of reasoning has been both intentionally and collaterally expressed throughout our social  institutions because that particular line of reasoning was institutionalized as the ‘law of the land’ from the inception of the United States in its Constitution.[1]  It filters down all institutions and to every individual. Harriet Tubman once shared for us an insight of hers about the psychology of a slave. She said: “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” Therein lies the problem at the heart of the issue.


Through educational and religious establishments the slave mentality has  been correspondingly embedded in the deepest recesses of our subconscious as a set of assumptions that are unquestionably valid. As such those assumptions have also served as a psychological defense mechanism used by Euro-Americans to effectively preempt human social inclusion and justice on a national scale.


That line of reasoning in fact describes a 2,400 year old downward spiral in relation to the quality of human reasoning about social justice. This is so because the few who do benefit from such a line of reasoning cannot benefit from it in the absence of extreme social injustice and its consequent unequal distribution of wealth.  Further, the few who benefit must also establish and maintain conditions of oppression to further  their world order.  It is like nuclear radioactive fall-out. You can’t see it, you can’t smell it, you can’t touch it, but it permeates everything and destroys all living creatures.


The ‘fall-out’ from their line of reasoning describes a global canopy of  assumptions  above and beyond which few are able, daring enough, or willing to rise up to challenge.  As such, it has caused a narrowing of the mindscape and thus our field of vision. It even causes African-Americans to frame their social justice movements upon the same set of assumptions which are used to maintain social injustice.  So, the vernacular of our civil rights movements has not been truly antithetical to the white supremacist assumptions which cause injustice.

 Malcolm X

The welding together of such glaring contrarieties as the appeal for justice in the language of injustice has doomed every social justice movement from the turn of the 20th century to the civil rights movement of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. That is why the socio-economic conditions of African Americans are worse today than they were 60 years ago.  That is echoed in what Malcolm X said:     

“It is incorrect to classify the revolt of the Negro as simply a radical conflict of black against white or as purely [an] American problem. Rather, we are today seeing a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter.”

White supremacist assumptions about race gird up a definition which is today the dominant force shaping what we know about the origin, history, statuses, roles, social rights and obligations expected by and of every person on earth.  It also serves the manifest function of maintaining the economic status quo.

“As a man thinketh, so shall it be”

Our language frames our  thoughts. Pictures are embedded in the words as metaphors.  Language is also laden with metaphorical assumptions about other people. Most of us never dig deeply into the etiology or nature of the words we use in everyday speech to help us comprehend those assumptions. We are casual in our use of such words, in our reasoning with them, and on the sentences we make up by such words. That means we’re ignorant about how words work on our collective sentiment and the collective sentiment of all.

Words and sentences merge with the natural world and have a powerful descriptive effect on our mindscape and social relations. They are forms and sound embedded with assumptions.  They are linked together and  through categorizations are welded together into real actions. They come alive such that we participate a social construction foundationally set to make us closer to or farther from  ethnic groups different from our own. We pass that meaning on from one generation to another usually subconsciously but also consciously. That is the purpose of culture.  It engenders casual habitual behaviors.

We are verbally casual in our interpersonal interactions but we can also be very logically fallacious in our reasoning, too, because we don’t scrutinize the nature of what we say. Neither do we scrutinize the classical literature which still makes up our popular  religious and liberal arts education and which shapes our world view.

Further, those same religious and liberal arts world views  dominate our substantive and procedural law as well as scientific bodies of knowledge. If we were to become more conscious and critical of our language, then we would discover those bedrock assumptions which drive both the rationalizations of oppressors as well as oppressed persons as they are actively and or passively concretized into political policy, social classes, castes, roles, rights, obligations, and statuses.

 digging into the mind


Whether or not we do ‘dig deeply’ into our subconscious to question those bedrock assumptions, which trigger our social responses to others who are ethnically different, depends in part upon the amount of advantage one gains in society or our lack of competing on a level playing field.  The assumptions I  explore do give advantage to some groups and do make other groups socially disadvantaged.


The ruling classes or castes never question the ‘bed-rock’ assumptions as long as those assumptions as applied in society have worked to get them a disproportionate share of social benefits. For them it’s the proverbial saying which rings true: ‘if it works, don’t fix it.’ In the Americas, it works for ‘White’ people, so they don’t fix it and as long as it does work for them they don’t intend to fix it.  The white supremacist’ world view has been and is very effective on maintaining the order they want.


During the twentieth century circa 1930, a sociologist by the name of Emory Bogardus did a study called the ‘Social Distance Scale’. His bipolar questionnaire asked persons specific questions about how they would feel working with, living near, or marrying into other ethnic groups. What resulted from his study was a ranking of social distance determined by individual’s preferences and between different ethnic groups. In short, most persons ranked English and American ‘Whites’ as the most acceptable groups to work with, be ‘near’ socially and marry within while at the bottom were conspicuously non-Caucasian ethnic groups such as Indians (India) and Africans.


I posit in this book that the subconscious assumptions for making social distance real is an ‘offense’ mechanism as well as defense mechanism for plutocrats.  Whether one is offensive or defensive depends upon the circumstances. For example, the institution of slavery was purely offensive in nature whereas affirmative action law instigated defensive reactions to subconscious assumptions held by racist Caucasians.


Some persons are true believers in the ideology of race and so rationalize ‘racism’. In that case those persons evaluate and judge according to their assumptions about others and in so doing convert their beliefs into a ‘state of mind’  which is then acted out as discrimination.


That discrimination is the social distance in real space and time between one person or group and another. Persons acting affirmatively on their prejudice and by the distance they cause by their prejudice they stigmatize and criminalize, i.e., discriminate (krima: to condemn-Greek) other persons and ethnic groups. Such is what we mean by social marginalization, segregation isolation, and poverty.


All of these mental mechanisms condition a knee-jerk reflex by individuals and  have both the psychological and social effect of lowering the esteem of some persons in society at large.  By these mental mechanisms, the bedrock subconscious assumptions are consciously rationalized as cult, ideology, or belief and even ‘pseudo-science’.


One of my other premises is that no understanding of the ‘race’ problem can be had without a knowledge of the history of its development in Western culture.  Exactly, what is ‘Race’? In order to answer that question I shall critically examine that idea and how it has been rationalized as ideology and ‘pseudo-science’.  Furthermore, I shall examine how the idea of race was intended to be used as a social construct to further the aims of economic, cultic, and political repression and exploitation.


Another premise of my book is that no solution to the so-called ‘race’ problem can be had through conversation using the very categorical concepts and words which carry stigmata and krimata onto other groups and which are the cutting edge of fallacious racial assumptions.  What simply happens during intellectual discussions which employ terms like ‘black people’ and ‘white people’ is that everyone is reinforced in their ideology of race.  In such circles, the expectation of a race premised conversation to end the disastrous effects of racism on our society is a logical reduction to absurdity.





[1] United States Constitution: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3