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

Book Cover Earthcolony

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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






[1] Aristotle, Politics

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

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

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

[5] Ibid, 1255b

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

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

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

Welcome to Earth Colony.Net: “FEAR HAS ITS USE BUT COWARDICE HAS NONE”, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed


There are two fundamental impediments challenging the African American community. They are its unscrupulous members and its fears. The first and worst challenge faced by the Black community are from people within its own population who share the same ethnic characteristics. For that reason they are camouflaged and thus more likely to win the trust of innocent persons. These unscrupulous people are individual malicious men and women, as well as institutions within the community.  Whether they work for plantation masters and overseers or whether they work out of greed and selfish material interests, all of them act to do harm to the innocence of African people. They are in street gangs, religious groups, businesses, education, government services, and law. All of those entities support the plantation status quo and are rewarded for doing so.


All of them add up to a degenerative force in the community. Such was the structure of the southern plantation wherein Negro slave was pitted against Negro slave for a prize of pork guts; such was the structure of the Warsaw ghetto wherein Ashkenazi Jews were manipulated to literally cannibalize each other as they jockeyed for a dead life and for favor in the eyes of their Jewish overseers who in-turn hustled for their Nazi war lords’ approval.  And it is never by overwhelming numbers that they are ruled. But rather they are paralyzed by fear.


Fear is the second impediment. For it is never the number of degenerates that are greater because they are always far outnumbered by their victims.  No; the harm to the innocence of African people can only happen if enough African people have a deficit of conscience.  A greater deficit of conscience establishes amorality as the new norm in the inner cities of the United States. 


There is a deficit of conscientiousness in the African American community otherwise that new norm would not exist. A prime example is the hip-hop ‘nuisance’. The fact that the hip-hop counterculture can openly defame African icons such a Harriett Tubman and is produced and controlled by a Jewish media cliché in Hollywood supports the claim there aren’t enough conscientious African people who will stand up to stop it. Consequently, many young African American men and women have literally lost their minds and it is we the educated and understanding folks who have allowed that to happen.


When men and women of learning and thoughtfulness ignore the long shadow of social evil that is cast over them, those they love and their communities by unscrupulous persons among them, then their community is more dead than alive.  Thus, whatever their class or presumed status they too are more dead than alive. They are more dead than alive because they have a deficit of conscience.  The facts support that thesis. The 1 million entombed men and women locked away in prisons, the 7,000 who will die of ‘Black on Black’ homicide this year, and the 22 million fetuses aborted since 1972 are incontrovertible proofs that both those victimized, even the unborn who are dead, and the community are more dead than alive. But is this a passing fog or a permanent shadow which envelopes us all?


It is a shadow that is now cast over all African Americans -descendents of slaves.  It is a shadow which does not smother all the life out of innocence, for then the unscrupulous ones would die, too.  Rather it lingers over innocence as a shadowy pall; it is an immoveable pall because it feeds upon their spirit of innocence day and night. We are their ‘live-stock’.  Their strength over us comes from our fears, our ignorance, and our ill health.  For the victims must be kept morally and physically weak so that they can be dominated. You see, the relationship has become sadomasochistic.


This is a time different from the past. It is a time when men and women of learning and thoughtfulness tremble at the thought of their own death. There is no difference in the passage of time but  there is a difference in the texture of common character. Even more, they have become so psychologically impaired by their fears that they cannot throw themselves with full force at their nemesis. Nor can they at least speak out against the social evils which sap the spirit from their own children in their own homes and in their own communities.


Those same people however learned and however thoughtful are cowards. Their fear of death and want of sugary comfort and entitlements outweigh their conscientiousness.  The end result is always cowardice. That is historically true. Cowards never act. Cowards tremble in sleep and when awake. Cowards do what they are told to do. Then they die.




Welcome to Earth Colony.net- “LET THEM EAT CAKE !”, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed


Good bye uncle tom 4

In 1960, a person could buy a candy bar for .05 cents (five cents).  I know because I bought many candy bars. Today, in 2013 (and if I still ate candy which I do not), that same candy bar would cost me $1.00 (one dollar).  Over a time span of 53 years, a candy bar cost 20 times more than it did in 1960. 


We could do the same calculation for bread, milk, eggs, and rent.  For example, a loaf of bread cost about 20 cents in 1960. Now that same loaf of bread will cost you about 4 dollars; 20 times more than it did in 1960.  I paid about 100.00 a month for a two bed room apartment in 1970.  That same apartment today will cost 20 times more or slightly less depending upon its location.  I think you get the point.  The cost of living has been increasing steadily over the past 50 years. 


The cost of commodities increases in relation to the annual inflation rate. The annual inflation rate has averaged 3% percent per year for over 50 years.  That means that if your annual income has not increased at a rate at least equal to that of the inflation rate then each dollar that you earn will have had decreasing purchasing power each year. Consequently, you will not be able to keep up with the cost of living. The minimum wage was designed to be a safety-net-FOR GOVERNMENT. Do you get that point?


The first minimum wage was set at .25 cents in 1938 during the great depression.  It was part of the ‘New Deal’ legislation signed into law under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Today, the minimum wage set by the Federal Government is $7.25 per hour.  The federal minimum wage has increased 29 times (29 x .25= 7.25) what it was in 1938.  Over the past 75 years if commodity prices had remained constant we would all be participating in the middle class. Unfortunately, commodity prices have not remained constant resulting in a smaller middle class and even expanding the lower class. More American citizens are poor.



The structure of the economy is like a circle of numbered dominos.  At one end ‘the invisible hand’ pushes down the first domino. The first in turn pushes down the second one, the second contacts the third and so on.  There is a high likelihood that all the dominos will fall due to the sum of collective momentum gathered by each preceding domino as that force of momentum is passed on to the next domino.


The force at which the last domino hits the ground is greater than the force exerted on the first domino by ‘the invisible hand’.  By the time the last domino hits the ground all the other dominos from the first wave have more or less rebounded and have been propped up by the profit momentum moving in the opposite direction and thus completing the circuit.


That happens because parallel forces of momentum are always moving in opposite directions. One is continually moving forward passing down costs and the other force is continually moving backward passing up profit. The consumer is not connected to the profit force.  You are simply a laborer, so you are connected only to the cost force in the marketplace. That is why you can never break even financially. You are always short on cash and being forced more or less to live on borrowed money.


Now think logically, your situation is analogous to the domino effect. That means you are the last domino in line. You are the last numbered domino.  The majority of people are always unable to escape that position in the hierarchy.  All of the increases in costs from the producers, distributors, and finally to the retailers are passed down to you, the consumer.  Then what?


At the end of the day you’re alone lying there on your ass and there’s no one to pick you up.  You’ve got to pick yourself up. Freeze that frame there with you on your ass, because when you ‘pick yourself up’, that is the moment that you trigger the profit momentum force feedback (more money for them into their pockets). It is because you ‘adapt’ to higher costs by paying the higher prices for food, clothing, and shelter as well as state and federal fees and taxes. You may be left with a few dollars at the end of the month. You may then realize the loneliness of being broke.


There is no one after you to whom you can pass the cost down. So there is no positive income feedback for you. You get hit the hardest. The only way to  make up the difference between what you pay for food, clothing, shelter, taxes and fees for the increased cost of living, is to get a raise in your income that is greater than the annual inflation rate (cost of living raise) or get a second job.  If collectively workers do get a minimum wage increase that aggregate increase in wages will reduce the profit margin of all the businesses for which laborers work.


All businesses want to maintain or increase their profit margin in the market place. They want to keep their income advantage.  They cannot do that by being fair or just toward you. So they act in such a way as to keep you economically disconnected. That is because the economic system we have breeds economic injustice. The economic system is unjust by design. There is an enlightenment doctrine which supports that conclusion.



There is evidence to support the argument that our economic system is designed to be inherently unjust. One hundred and thirty-eight years before the Declaration of Independence (1776) the Maryland Colony Council wrote: “Neither the existing black population, their descendants, nor any other Blacks shall be permitted to enjoy the fruits of White society.” This doctrine later would exclude Irish immigrants by degree as indentured servants.  We are therefore forced to admit that a legally defined permanent underclass and lower-class of laborers was put into place and subjected to colonial police power.  The purpose of that legislation was to profit from free and cheap labor. 

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3


The framers of the United States Constitution inherited the doctrine of exclusion and included it under article 1, section 2, clause 3.  Therein it specifically defines the class and ‘caste’ hierarchy of the new United States.  At the bottom of the socio-economic-political hierarchy are the same ethnic groups mentioned in the Doctrine of Exclusion.  Indentured servants, Native Americans, and Africans were relegated to the permanent underclass (3/5th all others) for Africans, those not taxed for Native Americans, and those bound for service meaning indentured European immigrant servants. The quest for profit was the reason for such a legal hierarchy. The United States was predicated on inequality not equality.


The intent of the framers was to legalize slavery. The slaves would be a permanent underclass. They also intended to create a lower class of dependent laborers which would be comprised of poor Caucasians.  In an agriculturally based economy they reasoned, as did the Romans, and determined that was the best or fastest way to generate profit and wealth. It did just that. 


But slavery ended. And now a new problem has arisen. It is the growing permanent underclass which cuts across all ethnic boundaries. It consists of men and women, unskilled, undereducated persons, and ex-felons.  These are people who have been made obsolete by technological innovations in the workplace and the exodus of manufacturing companies to overseas markets to exploit the availability of poor people who will work for next to nothing.


Nevertheless, the conservative premise that ‘labor exploitation is necessary’ remains fundamental to the operation and success of our national and global economy. This leads to a tragic conclusion. The permanent underclass is no longer needed; it is not even needed to exploit and that class has become a threat to the economy by virtue of its near absolute economic dependence. That conclusion must be rejected absolutely and categorically.


The liberal argument is a deceptive argument. Liberal democrats argue that ‘there should be a minimum wage increase’ in the United States. Their argument is a ‘straw man’ argument because it avoids the driving premise of the American and global economic paradigm. The liberal argument should be absolutely and categorically rejected because it is not a solution to the problem.


The liberal argument does not challenge the belief that ‘the economic exploitation of disenfranchised people who are educationally and vocationally fit for only low paying service jobs is moral as long as there are periodic adjustments to their minimum wages’. We are acutely aware of the immorality of economic exploitation and the dishonest persons that condone it. We know that this is where liberals and conservatives meet nodding yes, yes, in agreement that the show must go on as it is. 


We know that the mere adjustment of the minimum wage is fallacious.  We know such adjustments indicate actions to maintain the status quo. We know the cycle of economic exploitation will still continue. We know that increases in prices are inevitable as the marketplace adjusts to the increased costs paid out in the form of increased minimum wages.  In the end, we know that nothing changes within a dysfunctional economic system and that the system cannot change its own nature anymore than human beings can change their nature. We know that the world is being converted into a global plantation.  We know that we have been made into slaves, indentured and otherwise. We know that slaves think and plan like a prisoner of war. They think day and night of freedom. They think of freedom by any means necessary. 





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