A Brave Look Into The Colonized Mind

Let's begin with some definitions from A Case Study in Mental Colonization. [1]
Question: What is a White Man?
White” in White Man is not about skin color or complexion. It is about attitudes towards another. First, permitting Malcolm X to describe it in his own eloquence:
'It was when I first began to perceive that “white man” as commonly used, means complexion only secondarily; primarily it described attitudes and actions. In America, “white man” meant specific attitudes and actions toward the black man, and toward all other non-white men.' -- (Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964, 1999 hardcover edition, Chapter Mecca, page 364)
Project Humanbeingsfirst's usage of the word “white man” denotes an overarching attitude of a superiority complex which is best captured by the union of several nuanced concepts:
    • Malcolm X's aforementioned description of attitude rather than skin color;
    • the term 'Hectoring Hegemons' – the attitude of physically imposing one's self-perceived superiority complex upon another, to physically invade, conquer and enslave another in the name of god, glory, Lebensraum, or just for the opportunities to profit;
    • the term 'la mission civilisatrice' – the attitude which came to be defined by the colonizing European Christians in the preceding centuries, to rob and plunder the natives throughout the world bequeathing them the invaders' “Christian” culture as a gift of “civilization” to the “dogs” and “barbarians” to “save” them from eternal damnation as heathens;
    • the term 'Orientalism' – the attitude of prejudice, at times in the sub-text, betrayed in Western scholarship of the Orient, i.e., the East, that Western civilization is inherently superior to all the Eastern civilizations;
    • the term 'pious virtue' – the hypocritical attitude which comes about by harboring any of the above in one's psyche while pretending to be fair and sympathetic to the 'lesser people'. It is the unstated common assumption in the backdrop when dealing with the 'lesser people'. It is most easily discernible when rushing to the aid of the victims of the white man's la mission civilisatrice, sometimes with all the best intentions, but deeming the native victims inherently less worthy in comparison to when the “white man” is made victim. It is ably captured in Noam Chomsky's “worthy victim” vs. “unworthy victim” nomenclature with all its attendant semantics. Its manifestation is most stark in the differing standards for seeking compensation and punitive damages which are sought on behalf of the victims by those representing the victims, often from the victimizer's own civilization, or suitable lackeys chosen from among the 'lesser peoples' who are put up there as proxies for the “white man” now so magnanimously providing the 'lesser people' with the “white man's” justice. The end result exactly betrays that the “white man's” victims are deemed inherently superior to those from among the “barbarians”. The whole transaction is couched in “pious virtue”.
Question: What is The White Man's Burden?
The White Man's Burden appears Uniformly Distributed (Image source Library of Congress via umd.edu)

Caption The White Man's Burden appears Uniformly Distributed; Judge for yourself – The foolish 'untermenschen' better understand the insidious breadth and depth of the common ‘la mission civilisatrice’ bond among the white man (and including their ‘house niggers’ who are often more white than the white man) when they come, individually, and in groups, wearing different colored labels of Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Atheist, Christian, Jew, etcetera, bearing gifts of pious virtue in various Hegelian Dialectics. Zbigniew Brzezinski justified the primacy of the powerful with “Hegemony is as old as mankind” in The Grand Chessboard only as the latter day secular version of that same white man's burden. Unless the 'untermensch' nations of the East indigenously come to our own common self-defense against these almost superhuman global forces arrayed against the world for fashioning world government from the ashes of civilization, no one else will. See The White Man's Burden. [2]
Question: What is a Negro?
Let's begin by studying the very basic types of mental servitude. Let's start with Malcolm X's version of the ‘Negro’:
Click to hear Malcolm X - Field Negro vs House Negro

There was two kind of slaves.
There was the house Negro and the field Negro.
The house Negro, they lived in the house, with massa. They dressed pretty good. They ate good, cause they ate his food, what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near their master, and they loved their master, more than their master loved himself. They would give their life to save their master's house quicker than their master would.
The house Negro, if the master said 'we got a good house here', the house Negro say 'yeah, we got a good house here'.
Whenever the master would said we, he'd say we. That's how you can tell a house Negro.
If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say 'What's the matter, boss, we sick?' We sick!
He identified himself with his master, more than his master identified with himself.
And if you came to the house Negro and said 'let's run away, let's escape, let's separate', the house Negro would look at you and say 'man, you crazy! What you mean separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?'
That was that house Negro.
In those days, he was called a house nigger. And that's what we call him today, 'cause we still got some house niggers runnin around here.
This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him.
He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about 'I'm the only Negro out here. I'm the only one on my job. I'm the only one in this school.' You're nothing but a house Negro!
And if someone come to you right now and say 'let's separate', you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation: 'What you mean separate? From America? This good white man? Where you gonna get a better job than you get here? I mean this is what you say. 'I ain't left nothing in Africa'. That's what you say.
Why, you left your mind in Africa!
On that same plantation, there was the field Negro.
The field Negro, those were the masses. There was always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house.
The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers.
In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog.
They call them chetlands nowadays. In those days they called them what they were, guts!
That's what you were, a guteater. And some of you are still guteaters!
The field Negro was beaten, from morning till night.
He lived in a shack, in a hut. He wore cast-off clothes.
He hated his master. I say, he hated his master.
He was intelligent.
That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro, remember, they were in the majority, and they hated their master.
When the house caught on fire, he didn't try to put it out, that field Negro prayed for a wind. For a breeze!
When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he died.
If someone come to the field Negro and said 'let's separate, let's run.' He didn't say 'Where we going?' he said 'Any place is better than here'.
We got field Negroes in America today.
I'm a field Negro.
The masses are the field Negroes.
When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear these little Negroes talkin bout 'Our Government is in trouble'. They say 'thee Government is in trouble.'
Imagine a Negro, 'our Government'. I even heard one say 'our astronauts.' They won't even let him near the plant, and 'our astronauts'. 'Our Navy'. That's a Negro that's out of his mind.
That's a Negro that's out of his mind!
Just as the slave master in that day, used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check.
The same 'ol slavemaster today, has Negroes, who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms. 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check.
Keep us under control. Keep us passive and peaceful. And nonviolent. That's Tom making you nonviolent.
It's like when you go to the dentist, and the man is going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him, when he start pulling. So they squirt some stuff in your jaw called Novocain, to make you think they are not doing anything to you. So you sit there and because you got all that Novocain in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Hahahaha.
There's nothing in our Book, the Qur'an, as you call it, Koran, teaches us to suffer peacefully.
Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful. Be courteous. Obey the law. Respect everyone.
But if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery!
That's a good religion. In fact, that's that old-time religion. That's the one that Ma and Pa used to talk about.
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a head for a head, and a life for a life.
That's a good religion.
And then anybody, no one resist that kind of religion being taught but a wolf, who intends to make you his meal.
This is the way it is with the white man in America. He's a wolf, and you're sheep.
Anytime a shepherd, a pastor, teach you and me not to run from the white man, and at the same time teach us don't fight the white man, he's a traitor, to you and me.
Don't lay down our life all by itself. No! Preserve your life. It's the best thing you got.
And if you got to give it up, let it be Even Steven.” -- (Malcolm X, House Negro vs. Field Negro Speech [3] Transcription by Project Humanbeingsfirst.org)
In his autobiography, Malcolm X further fleshed out the modern Negro who thinks like the massa. He is black, brown, red or yellow in skin color, but is pure white in mind color:
Caption Uncle Tom of yesteryear (The Unknown Transformation of Malcolm X - Palestine: Seeking The Enemy Within)
'Today's Uncle Tom doesn't wear a handkerchief on his head. This modern, twentieth-century Uncle Thomas now often wears a top hat. He's usually well-dressed and well-educated. He's often the personification of culture and refinement. The twentieth-century Uncle Thomas sometimes speaks with a Yale or Harvard accent. Sometimes he is known as Professor, Doctor, Judge, and Reverend, even Right Reverend Doctor. This twentieth-century Uncle Thomas is a professional Negro ... by that I mean his profession is being a Negro for the white man.' -- (Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964, 1999 hardcover edition, Chapter Black Muslims, page 265. See The Unknown Transformation of Malcolm X [4])
Well, that description of the colonized mind turns out to be not all that modern, even though it accurately captures the modern Uncle Tom among all peoples. Witness the following statement in his speech before the English Parliament in 1835, by Lord Babington Macaulay who devised the new education policy for the Indian sub-continent – the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire:
'We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.' -- (Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, Minute on Education, 2nd February 1835)
Martin Luther King Jr. also offered a timeless description for the Negro which today transcends skin color and complexion in its empiricism:
'The white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation of manners, dress, and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man’s contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white man’s representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him.' -- (Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope, page 307)
Question: What is “Intellectual Negro”
Many more complex shades of the ‘Negro’ have been cultivated in modernity than the ones Malcolm X and MLK had been exposed to. One new shade that I have been grappling with for some time is the “Intellectual Negro”. This new shade of the servile Negro which escaped the experiences of the civil and human rights struggles of the American black leaders, has become ubiquitous among Muslims today, especially among Pakistanis, Afghanis, and Arabs. Indeed, among all nations along the 'arc of crisis' in the 'global zone of percolating violence'.
This kind of Negro is familiar to us under the nom de guerre 'fabricated dissent', a pernicious variant of 'native informant'.
This Negro, the “Intellectual Negro”, is very sophisticated, and often very intelligent with advanced academic and/or public credentials. This Negro will appear to hector (to play the bully) the white man and the white man's establishment, while still managing to echo the white man's core-axioms.
In other words, the intellectual Negro will appear to be an outspoken voice of dissent in favor of the downtrodden and the oppressed, typically from the 'left-liberal' nexus, but will still devilishly manage to echo the massa's core message. The 'right-conservative' nexus that usually align openly with the massa class and its primacy imperatives, also dabble in engineering consent among the minority in their own flock who refuse to tow the massa's line, by playing WWF wrestling with the massa.
These cheer leaders round up their respective flock around the core-axioms and presuppositions of the massa while playing vigorous dissent with the massa. This WWF exercise requires considerably more intellectual prowess and sophistication than typical propaganda with big lies.
For instance, while vehemently critiquing the empire's war on terror and its devastating impact upon the innocent victims across many civilizations, the intellectual Negro will craftily manage to echo the empire's core message that Al Qaeda is the global terrorist menace which carried out the 9/11 attacks on America.
That retention of the core-axiom of empire from which all the evil that followed after 9/11, and which enabled all its subsequent aggressive wars and crimes against humanity that he critiques, reduces the intellectual Negro to an absurdity. But he is treated as the most avant-garde in intellectual thought and praised by both, the hegelian instruments of the white man instrumenting its dissent-space, as well as the brain-washed field Negroes themselves to whom he laboriously carries the white man's burden displaying much personal anguish.
Thus, the facade of hectoring, i.e., challenging the visible narratives of power, serves the function of appearing to be on the side of the 'field Negro', but in reality he is still a 'house Negro' without speaking in that ‘we’ vernacular noted by Malcolm X.
These vulgar Negro types, spanning the full gamut of the colonized mind so ubiquitous among the Western educated likkha-parrha jahils ruling the Muslim mind today as the surrogate of the Mighty Wurlitzer, are employed or co-opted by the massa to cunningly manipulate the perspectives, and consequently the behavior, of the field Negros. [5]
Several examples of how this cunning is accomplished across Muslim cultures, especially among the Pakistani House Niggers, are described in the FAQ: What is an Intellectual Negro? A Case Study in Mental Colonization. The massa's skilful cunning that the house niggers copy for the want of a few crumbs from the massa's table, is dissected in The dying Songbird. [6]
What fundamentally causes this malfunction of the human psyche such that neither the massa class nor its vile surrogates harbor any moral compunction before the fact, nor any shame or remorse after the fact, as they continue to exercise their unfettered primacy upon the public mind rather openly?
Here is a bold look into the Sociopathic mind and what ought be done to preempt its primacy imperatives before it is fait accompli.
Question: What is the Sociopathic mind
A few years ago I accidentally stumbled on to the study of modern psychopathy and sociopathy. My first exposure to the latest developments in this field was to a book called Political Ponerology by a polish social scientist, Andrew Lobaczewski. Subsequently, my interest and study in neuroscience also contributed a measure of deeper understanding of the involuntary impact of DNA and neuro-biochemistry on pathological behavior. What had immediately attracted my attention to Lobaczewski's study however, was the bold claim made by its author and the editor of the English version of the book, that Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor (1976-1980, d. 2017), had tried to suppress its publication.
Now, why would the late Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski want to do that --- apart from the fact that he is himself a Polish Catholic immigrant to the United States and has been the key architect of The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (which is also the title of a book which he wrote in 1996) since 1972, when he founded the Trilateral Commission with International banker David Rockefeller?
So, like a child who is always curious when someone says “don't”, I read the book. Followed by other works on the subject, such as Martha Stout's The sociopath next door.
None of you in Pakistan are likely aware that the recent advances in psycho-sociology in the study of evil, betray that there is an element of it in a significant number of cases which may transcend moral choice.
Hitherto, good and evil have always been viewed from moral and religious perspectives. And it is still true for the vast majority of “normal” people.
But empiricism has also shown that it has never been true for the vilest psychopaths among mankind throughout history who have felt no internal need for the abstraction of good and evil.
Now a new empirical theory is evolving which is lending powerful explanation for these observations which appear to be as old as mankind. From time immemorial, it is a fact that remorseless fiends have risen to become leaders of men. Just like a snake bites, and a lion rules by might is right, which are also not moral choices for the beasts – because to exercise their primacy, for food, for hunger, or for territory, is in the very nature of these creatures.
Psychopathy is now being viewed in new light as a physical/emotional/neurological disorder where the person is physiologically unable to feel empathy, unable to feel remorse. The neurological or cellular material which generates empathy is suspected to be entirely missing in them, or severely atrophied for some reason.
The psychopath is often highly intelligent, very ambitious, very cunningly deceptive. He is able to disguise his primacy instincts with an affable smile and platitudinous nod to morality. As some might cynically observe in Pakistan, he often comes in uniform, with a broad smile, or with sajda (piety) stamped upon his forehead. And it is evidently independent of caste, color, ethnicity, creed, sex, sexual orientation, and political affiliation (which changes easily in any case).
These abnormal people don't appear prima facie abnormal. In fact, they tend to gain easy acceptability among their peers, sometimes even well liked, and often have the instincts to rise to the top of their profession by any means necessary. As they say in popular vernacular in Hollywood movies: sleep their way to the top!
But in reality, the sociopath next door adopts any method that will get him or her to the top in whatever he might be interested in. The notion of shame, remorse, hesitation, etc., which normal people feel when transgressing moral limits, or when caught, is alien to their nature in the same way as it is alien to a snake which strikes the unsuspecting victim that happens to come in its path.
No one really expects the snake to feel remorse, or admit guilt, or resign from its hunting ground in a show of moral gravitas that it bit an innocent doe.
Well, it is being discovered that the most audacious psychopaths, often the sociopath next door, are physiologically equally unable to feel remorse.
What is most frightening about this is that the number of such abnormal people who prey upon normal people from their perches is disturbingly higher than previously thought by sociologists.
The number disclosed in the book Political Ponerology is 6%.
According to these insane demographics, about six people in a hundred are potentially psychopathic. He or she will prey upon you as nonchalantly as the rest ninety four might step on a harmless bug while taking a walk in the park. But while you won't go to the bug's funeral or show any hypocrisy in the matter, it's only a bug after all, the psychopath will come to your funeral with a dozen roses and a wet handkerchief.
And these psychopathic people typically also tend to be the ones who invariably rise to all positions of power in society – from corporate to political to religious to yes, education too, all across the power spectrum in modern institutionalized society in every corner of the world.
They tend to congregate together in a fraternal bond and support each other just like a pack of wolves. They wash each other like Peter and Paul. How they actually recognize each other is rather obvious – even brief associations can betray who shows moral compunction and who does not.
Most normal people for whom good and evil are moral choices, even when they might choose evil, feel the guilt-pangs of that choice which manifests in a number of anxiety inducing ways from superficial guilt to stress, to PTSD.
And for all normal people, even if they were some how habitually desensitized through long years of immersion in the banality of evil, their physiological makeup is not averse to feeling remorse. And once it is brought to their attention and explained how they are complicit in the evil, they at least feel some guilt, some remorse, some anxiety, some shame.
That ability to feel shame, remorse and pangs of conscience is what makes us characteristically human.
I am not really making any of this up as I go along. Just outlining here my understanding of this fascinating subject which uncannily appears to meet the acid test of empiricism. Please refer to the cited books if even your own everyday commonsense observations disagree with any of this.
What is apparent to me, and should be to you as well, is that the rulership of Pakistan, like the rulership of most nations including the United States', are outstanding empirical evidence of this psychopathy lending great substantive import to these new researches into the study of evil. There is neither any moral compunction before the fact, nor any shame or remorse after the fact.
The only sensible way to control this evil is not to talk to it, or try to tickle its conscience – for that would be as effective as trying to talk to a viper to stop “dussing” (Urdu word for a snake striking a prey) or to feel guilt or remorse afterwards.
The only rational and effective approach to deal with psychopaths (those who look the part) and sociopaths (those who don't) is to detect and preempt them before they “duss” and cause their disproportional havoc; to seek legal entitlements under appropriate laws and statutes rather than with platitudes. If some laws are wanting to deal with this abnormal group effectively, than appropriate ones have to be legislated. While the natural predatory instinct of the rest of the normal ninety-four percent population can be modified to live by self-policed ethical standards, principally by nurturing them through education systems and expecting the same at all tiers of social intercourse, the remaining six percent shall always require legal dispensation, both before and after the fact.
This report on Whistleblowing Masterpiece of Plagiarism in Pakistan, underwrites the raison d'ĂȘtre of these differing approaches to be developed simultaneously for both these markedly different types of dysfunctional people to extract Pakistan out of its ethical morass. [7]
However, what causes their victims, the masses, to accept becoming such easy morsels of these sociopaths? Especially the Muslims who have been amply endowed with Great Divine Guidance to overcome all sociopaths among them? What causes their mass dysfunction?
One of the psychological forces that so easily disarms its victims appears to be the commonplace notion of Waiting for Allah. In that dissection of fatalistic eschatology, I take a bold look into the believing mind and how its resignation to fate is cunningly harvested by the Mighty Wurlitzer playing its specious epistemological tune on religion. [8]
The Machiavellian machinery of the Mighty Wurlitzer, which is now global and ubiquitous across all cultures and civilizations controlling virtually every domain of human belief systems, and consequently aggregate human behavior, is systematically deconstructed in a detailed report on psychological warfare operations on civilian populations using all aspects of modern media and official narratives. Pakistanis, while harboring a more healthy skepticism of power than their Western counterparts, must still pay particular attention to this diabolical cunning that is making their mind on virtually every matter pertinent to their lives and times. In the age of universal deceit, to learn the truth is a revolutionary act – the ultimate jihad. [9]
[3] Malcolm X, House Negro and Field Negro speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ_VWpJj0Dw

This adaptation from Project Humanbeingsfirst's original essays published on Thursday, July 4, 2019 10:00 am 4536

A Brave Look Into The Colonized Mind by Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org 14 / 14