Ozodi Osuji Ph.D

Ozodi Osuji Ph.D

Ozodi Thomas Osuji is from Imo State, Nigeria. He obtained his PhD from UCLA. He taught at a couple of Universities and decided to go back to school and study psychology. Thereafter, he worked in the mental health field and was the Executive Director of two mental health agencies. He subsequently left the mental health environment with the goal of being less influenced by others perspectives, so as to be able to think for himself and synthesize Western, Asian and African perspectives on phenomena. Dr Osuji’s goal is to provide us with a unique perspective, one that is not strictly Western or African but a synthesis of both. Dr Osuji teaches, writes and consults on leadership, management, politics, psychology and religions. Dr Osuji is married and has three children; he lives at Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

He can be reached at: ozodiosuji@gmail.com (907) 310-8176

Saturday, 24 February 2018 19:00

What is the self?


Ozodi Thomas Osuji

Scientific psychology defines the self as the product of the permutations of atoms in our brains. The brain is composed of matter; matter is composed of atoms; atoms are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. The various elements, there are sixty four elements in the human body, primarily carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, calcium, iron, potassium, zinc, copper, magnesium, sulfur, phosphor and so on, in the brain interact and the product is thinking and what we call the human self.  In this sense the self is epiphenomenal, is the product of biological processes.

Sigmund Freud posits that the real self is pure animal (ID); the human being's real self is the bundle of instincts that Freud called the ID (aggression, sex and Thanatos, death wish).

As old Freud sees it, our nature has no morality; we simply want to gratify our sexual and aggressive instincts and to kill each other at wars.

Another part of us, the superego, representing internalized social norms, what we have to do to live with each other, suppresses the ID. Thus, nurture fights nature.

A third part of us, the ego, acts as a kind of referee balancing the desires of the id and the suppressions of the superego.

For example, you see a beautiful damsel and desire her sexually, this is the id at work; the superego tells you not to even think about it, for she is someone's girlfriend and if you make a move on her he might be angry at you and attack and or even kill you; the ego tells you to go find an unhooked up girl to mess with, or masturbate or go to a prostitute to gratify your polymorphous sexuality.

The normal human being balances the three forces of id, ego and superego in his head.  So, what is man?

He is animal, old Sigmund Freud said. Remove social strictures on inappropriate behaviors and men would be raping the women in their world; indeed, parents would be having sex with their children.

Social psychology tells us that whatever our real self is that we all are socialized and in the process develop social selves; the social self is the self we must behave as in society or else we are rejected and punished by other people.

The social self is a mask, a persona, what we deem appropriate behaviors in the context of society.

The idea of social self assumes another self beneath the mask, social self. What is the real self beneath the social mask, the persona?

Scientific psychology does not help us understand what our real self is, if at all we have real self. Strict evolutionary biology tells us that we are the products of past concatenations of events in our environment; we resulted from random, accidental and chancy changes in the environment so there is no such self as the real self beneath the self we developed to adapt to our physical and social environments.

Metaphysics and religion tells us that our real self is spirit. Oriental religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism teach that the real self is part of a unified spirit self, variously called Brahman, Buddha, Tao; oriental religions teach that we are inseparable from the unified self.

The goal of oriental religions, in meditation, is to enable us rise above the superficial social self and reach the spiritual self, the unified self.

There is no universally verifiable proof of the existence of the unified spirit self. Science has not proved its existence.

The only supposed proof for the existence of God is anecdotal, what some mystics report that they experienced.

Since most of us have not experienced what Buddha or Ramakrishna experienced we cannot verify it; we are left no choice but to either accept it on faith or dismiss it as rubbish.

Christianity and Islam merely posit a father God and ask people to believe him without bothering to demonstrate his existence.  Faith is not science.

A rational person must be skeptical and agnostic on metaphysical matters; atheism is as dogmatic as faith, for the atheist presumes to know all about reality.

Science has only understood less than 1% of the universe; 96% of the universe is composed of dark energy and dark matter and we do not understand those.

(Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Confucius, Buddha, Shankara, Ramanuja, Marcus Aureoles, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, Rene Descartes, Spinoza, Ludwig Leibnitz, David Hume, George Berkeley, Blaise Pascal, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Herbert Spencer, Feuerbach, Bergson, William James, Wittgenstein and other philosophers grappled with the nature of the self; you might want to peruse these folks and feast your mind on human thinking at its best. If you are interested in the philosophy of science you must have education in the physical sciences, up to, at least, a bachelor's degree; you must be familiar with the discoveries of Nicolas Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Huygens, Tycho Brahe, Harvey, Dalton, Boyle, Thomas Young, Laplace, Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, James Clark Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann, Marie and Pierre Curie, Jenner, Max Plank, Albert Einstein, Ernest Rutherford, Neils Bohr, Alexander Flaming, Louis Broglie, Arthur Eddington, Alexander Friedman, George Lemaitre, Edwin Hobbles, Werner Heisenberg, Emil Schrodinger, Paul Dirac, James Chadwick, Lise Meitner, Thomas Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, George Gamow, Francis Crick, James Watson, James Wheeler, John Bell, Hugh Everett, Alan Aspect, Alan Gott, Eugene Wigner, Stephen Weinberg and other seminal scientists; you must understand what constitutes the scientific method, for example, does Karl Poppers addition of refutability to the usual observation and verifiability a useful indication of what is science; can science help us ascertain what is real; is reality always a social construct, as Karl Mannheim, Emil Durkheim and other sociologists tell us? )

So, my dear friend, what is the self? Are we pure animals, as scientific psychology seems to suggest or are we a part of unified spirit self, as oriental religions suggest? Who are you?  What do you think is your real self?

If you are an African I would like to hear from you. It really bugs me that Africans seldom engage in philosophical discourse. You seldom find an African that talks ontological, epistemological, and metaphysical and other matters; they seem bereft of higher order thinking.

My goal is to find a way to make Africans think. Their lack of curiosity about the nature of phenomena bothers me no end; around them all they talk about is money and social prestige derived from buying political positions; it never occurs to them that they live for a while (53 years is their life span) and die and their bodies are eaten by worms, so who are they, mere food being prepared for worms?

Anyway, what do you think is your real self? Are you pure animal? If so please pause to ponder the consequences of that position. Animals do kill other animals and take over their territories. If you are pure animal why shouldn't white folks kill you, wipe off all Africans and transform Africa into a wild animal preserve, as many racists who insist that Africans are unintelligent would like to do?

Who are human beings? This is our weekend assignment. Folks should stop eating too much, drinking alcohol and doing drugs and stop humping their women and use their brains to figure out what life means to them.

Africa cannot be well governed until Africans develop sound philosophies and political and economic ideologies, as occidental and oriental folks did.

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

February 24, 2018


Friday, 23 February 2018 20:40

Yorubas do not have respect for igbos

From Ozodi Osuji's Daily Journal:


Observing the behavior of Yorubas towards Igbos it is apparent to me that Yorubas have no respect for Igbos. They see themselves as better than Igbos.

Yorubas act as a group; they always praise their own people even if they are mediocre while looking down on any Igbo, even if an Igbo is a superstar in his line of work.

Igbos react to Yoruba look down by trying to show that they are important folks. Thus, the two southern groups go at each other's throats instead of unifying to fight the Northerners who dominate them.

This is classic divide and conquer situation; the shrewd north divides the naïve south and make them easily ruled.

Yoruba has no positive agenda that it is seeking for Nigeria and does not have the courage to separate from Nigeria.

Igbos are too undiplomatic to get folks to support their wish to have their own country so they are caught as second class people in


All Igbos seem to know how to do is call folks insulting names; it is as if they believe that calling people put down names changes their conquered situation in Nigeria.

They make life more difficult for themselves for those they derogate gang up and work against them hence keep them on the ground, where they currently are.

Nevertheless, I fully understand why Igbos act angrily towards Nigerians; they are reacting to Yoruba lack of respect for them and Yoruba unwillingness to work with them so that both joined together to deal with Hausas. Azikiwe and Awolowo could not work together to deal with the Hausas.

Hausas have Arab-Muslim focused world (and Arabs do not take them seriously, for to Arabs they are a source of African slaves).

Given their ethnic cleavages, Nigeria is going nowhere. It is probably right to separate Nigeria into ethnic based countries and let each group go try to see if it can make a go of it; as they are currently put together all they are doing is abusing each  other.

I understand the wish of Igbos to separate from Nigeria; there is sense to that wish. But Hausas and Yorubas would not let Igbos separate from Nigeria, for they sense the uniqueness of Igbos.

Igbos are hardworking and are motivated to succeed in whatever they do, without them Nigeria would be worse than it is.

I am seriously rethinking my belief that Nigeria ought to stay together. Given Nigerians tendency to place tribe ahead of nation, their inability to respect each other it seems that they ought to go their separate ways; let us see if each of them can make it on its own.

There is no need for them to be handicapping each other, as they are currently doing. Unless people respect each other they cannot live together.

Given Nigerians lack of respect for each other's ethnic group they probably ought to go their different ways.


One wishes that Nigeria is as developed as East Asia (Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia etc.) but the fact is that it is not. What Nigerians are now is what they are. The rest is wishful thinking.

Nigerians lack moral fiber; they are prone to stealing, corruption and selling their people. They do not work for the collectivity but only for the individual.

What Nigeria needs is a change in ideology, a new ideology that gets them to work for the collectivity and sacrifice for the collectivity; until they do so they are going to be poor and badly governed.

Ozodi Osuji

February 23, 2018


Thursday, 22 February 2018 23:47

There are people whose minds resent structure



Ozodi Thomas Osuji


Scientists tell us that far in the human past that there was a time when human beings were like other animals and lived alone; they are said to have roamed the wilds as separated animals. That is an interesting story.  History shows us that human beings have always lived in groups. Human beings are social animals.


Living in groups taught human beings that each of them has what it takes to harm or kill others so they have always had rules (mores, norms and laws) that they expect members of their group to obey and obeying which they are protected.


Those who did not obey the rules made by their nominal group are generally punished; the punishment ranges from ostracism to imprisonment and capital punishment.


There is no known human group without its rules of behavior. Thomas Hobbes (1651) in his seminal treatise on political philosophy, Leviathan, gave us an account of why people need organized society and laws. According to him, there was a mythical past when individual human beings did not live in organized society; each person fended for his self-interests; in pursuit of his self-interests he often negatively affected other people's interests;  folks fought to protect their interests; the powerful harmed or killed the weak and a group of the weak killed the powerful. The result was that in nature life was nasty, brutish and short; all people lived in perpetual insecurity.


To reduce their insecurity people established formal society and chose a king, government to rule them. They gave the ruler the right to make laws that they all obeyed and in obeying them live more secure lives.  In the commonwealth, those who do not obey the laws of society are punished by the ruler.


Whereas Hobbes' Leviathan is rooted in a mythology, you get the idea of where he is coming from with his story; he essentially made the case for government in society, for the alternative is anarchy and chaos.


Hobbes' ruler is an absolute autocrat, for, to Hobbes, people are so selfish that they need a strong ruler to whip them into order.


Authoritarianism and totalitarianism is not always the best form of government; the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR, made that point in real time.


John Locke (1688) in his Second Treaty on Government showed us how we can do better than Hobbes' absolute government; Locke urged us to give limited powers to government.  It is us who elected to have governments to protect us; as a sovereign people we have the right to decide how much powers we give to our government.


Locke wrote after the English civil war; during that war the English (Royalist and Parliamentarians) killed each other.


In 1649 the puritans, under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, chopped off their autocratic king Charles' head.


Crownwell's Parliament ruled England for a while but the supporters of the monarchy had not given up hence the civil war.


Hobbes was a royalist; Locke was a parliamentarian; the battle lines were drawn. The two sides duked it out. When the dust settled, Parliament went to the Netherland to recruit a king (William of Orange) to come rule with Mary and set up a monarchy; William and Mary were given limited powers; they ruled in conjunction with parliament.


The salient point is that man lives in society that needs laws and that individuals are socialized to obeying laws.  A normal human being is a person who lives in society and obeys the norms (laws) of his society.


If you do not behave in accordance with the rules of your society you are deemed abnormal; in extreme cases you are seen as insane.


I cannot imagine a human society where there are no laws and law enforcers.  The absence of laws would mean chaos and anarchy.


By the same token, I cannot imagine a human society where all live equally. People have different talents. A handful of people are truly intelligent, the many are average and a few not intelligent.


In a world where people have different abilities society cannot be ruled by all people; would you like morons to rule your society?


Everywhere on planet earth above average people rule society (the typical rulers IQ is around 115-125).  The mentally gifted are not found in government anywhere in the world; those are found as writers, artists, scientists and researchers.


The relevant point is that there must be organized society, law makers and law enforcers. To be normal is to live under the law.


Now, what happens if ones nature is such that one does not like to live in stratified society? There are human beings who, for whatever reasons, do not like to live in organized structures; they see social organizations and its laws not to their liking and kick against them.


Such persons are so from birth; they are not pretending; they are being their selves when they resent rules and rules enforcers.


There is something in such persons that resent organized situations and laws that make organizations possible. In our extant world such people oppose laws and those who enforce laws (parents, teachers, police men and courts etc.).


As children such persons do not want any one telling them what to do. They do not like their parents and teachers telling them what to do; they are at war with the police and other agents of organized society. Some such children drop out of school.


These people's nature disposes them to detest rules and structures. Their resentment of rules and structures lead them to not wanting to study highly structured subjects, such as mathematics, grammar and law. These subjects require one to merely accept their structures; rules of the game.


Children who resent rules do not do well at mathematics, English and law.   This does not mean that they are not intelligent; in fact, some of them have superior intelligence (IQ above 132). It is just that their nature does not want to be structured.


Extant Psychiatry diagnoses such children as having Opposition Defiant Disorder. ODD. They are teachers' nightmares.


We do see signs of ODD in such children from about age ten.


Can a human being who resents structure exist outside society? Where have we seen human beings living outside social structure?


I do not believe that human beings can live outside social structure. Since some children and adults resent structure we have to study and understand them and see what we can do to help them live with some structure (live under the law).




Psychology does not have a credible causal hypothesis of opposition defiant disorder; what it has are speculations and conjectures.


I have worked with ODD kids and have some ideas on why they are the way they are. Here is my hypothesis; it is heuristic, not final.


Children who are called oppositional defiant are generally kids whose minds wish for ideals. They automatically seek perfection.


They look around and no human being is perfect. Parents, teachers, society's leaders are not perfect. Therefore, they see people and society as imperfect and seek alternative to them.


They use their minds to visualize perfect people and perfect social organizations and wish to bring those into being. In the meantime, they have no respect for what is: imperfect, real people.


Over time, say, in mid-life, they learn that no human being, themselves included, is ever perfect. There is no way a person can live in imperfect body and be perfect. All human beings are imperfect.


What is called maturity is the ability to live with one's imperfect self and tolerate other people's imperfect selves.


The realistic, mature person does not reject people just because they are imperfect; he does not hope for people to become perfect before one accepts them. He accepts people as they are, imperfect.


People are not going to become perfect so if you hope to accept and love them only when they are perfect you are going to wait forever, for they are not going to become perfect.


You accept and love people as they currently are, imperfect and not wait for them to become perfect before you accept and love them.  In the language of Carl Rogers, you accept people in an unconditionally positive manner.




Years ago I worked with children. I saw the whole spectrum of so-called problem children, those diagnosed as having Learning Disorders, Speech Disorders, Autism, Asperger's, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Conduct Disorders and Opposition Defiant Disorders etc. For some reasons those with ODD interested me the most.


So, why did they interest me? It is probably because I am one of them.  My inner self resents being told what to do by other people; I resent the structure imposed on people by society; I do not do well in subjects that require structure.


I dropped out of law school because I could not deal with structured laws; I did not want to talk about crime and punishment.


The day I dropped out of law school was the happiest day of my life. Generally, I do not take alcohol but when, finally, I had the courage to leave law school I went and bought a can of beer to celebrate my freedom from the requirement for structure.


Thereafter, I accepted that every human being is unique; each person is disposed by his nature to do certain things well and not others. I was not meant to do well in structured subjects and I accepted that reality.


I do not want to be part of organized structures; I want to be outside them and from the outside observe their internal dynamics.  I study human social organizations, including governments and religions. However, I cannot belong to them. I do not belong to any religion but probably have studied God more than formal theologians.




In matter, space and time people are always imperfect. People are probably perfect outside matter, space and time, in what religionists call God and his heaven, in spirit.


There is no way that perfection can exist in our world of space, time and matter. However, we can imagine perfection. But when we try to actualize our mentally conceptualized perfection in human body, body living in space and time, it must become imperfect.


Thus, those who seek perfection and ideals and as a result reject what is must make accommodations to reality.   Since people and their laws are not ever going to become perfect one must live with them as they are.


Of course, one must struggle to improve people and their social institutions. Social institutions were not designed by God but by human beings. They are imperfect institutions designed by imperfect human beings.


For example, beginning in the late eighteenth century, imperfect Americans designed capitalism and rule by the rich (oligarchy) for their society.


It is clear that American society is unfair to the poor and must be redesigned or it is heading to the garbage heap where old empires reside.


Human reason tells me that a mixed economy (a combination of capitalism and socialism) and social democracy that deliberately provides certain services to all citizens, such as publicly paid education at all levels, university included, and publicly paid health insurance for all people, is the better society.


America's refusal to do the right thing while spending absurd amounts of money on defense (almost a trillion dollars annually) will relegate it to the garbage can before this century runs out.


We must continually improve ourselves, our social institutions and our world but always bearing in mind that we are never going to make us and our world perfect.


Just because people and their social institutions are imperfect is no reason to give up on them. We are like the Greek myth of Sisyphus; we must keep on rolling stones uphill knowing that whatever goes up must come down. Such is life, C'est la vies.


Giving up on life is not an option; only cowards drop out of life and its admittedly vain struggles.


Ozodi Thomas Osuji


February 22, 2018




Wednesday, 21 February 2018 18:38

American politicians are cowards



Ozodi Thomas Osuji


American politicians are cowards; they are at the whims of lobbyists and those who fund lobbyists, the wealthy.


American political scientists who observe the politicians are even greater cowards for they will not state the truth of the need to change the political system and turn it into a social democracy.


Consider the issue of guns. Clearly, guns are designed to kill people and animals. If you own guns you either want to use them to hunt and kill animals or use them to defend yourself from intruders into your property.


From what we know about human beings, we can safely say that they have freedom of choice and that some do choose to harm and or kill others. Common sense tells us that each citizen is probably best served to have a gun to protect his life and interests.


But that gun ought to be registered and the bullets numbered and registered, so that should they be used to harm folks society knows who used them to do so.


Having granted that the individual probably requires a gun to defend against intruders to his property, common sense tells us that the individual does not need assault type of guns that have magazines carrying hundreds of bullets.  High powered rifles ought to be limited to the military.


In America, the gun lobby would not have any of this. Gun manufacturers want to sell guns and make profit. The manufacturers pay lobbyists called the National Rifle Association to lobby politicians and make sure that they do not do anything to regulate guns.


Introduce a Bill in Congress (or state legislatures) to regulate guns and the NRA would kill it; they would not even allow that background check on those who want to buy gun be required.


Politicians need money from all sorts of lobbyists to fund their unending cycles of reelection drives (why elect Congress every two years, why not make it  every five years and have term limit of four terms), so they are beholden to the lobbyists and won't do what they know is the right thing, in this case, regulate guns.


Yes, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is right in stating that the people ought to be able to have guns to protect their selves; we know that governments can become dictatorial so people need to have guns so as to be able to go chase them away; we also know that human beings can choose antisocial behaviors so people need to have the means to protect themselves against criminals.


But do people need to have access to military type rifles? Do people need armored vehicles, jet fighters and bombers to protect themselves?


Where do we draw the line and if no line is to be drawn then let people buy tanks and drive them about on city streets; why not, it is the ultimate protection from criminals.


American school children are randomly killed by their fellow students who have access to high caliber guns. But the politicians would not regulate such students' access to guns; instead, they give us the old and worn out cliché that people kill people not guns.


When actual killing takes place politicians say that they have the victims in their thoughts and prayers.  Thoughts and prayers do not stop killers from killing people; what stops them is reducing their access to guns.


Yes, people kill people but if you want to kill people with a club you probably would not get very far before you are tackled down. On the other hand, with a high caliber rifle, in ten minutes you would have killed seventeen people and wounded others, as happened, last week, at Parkland, Florida high school.


Guns need to be regulated, including registering them and their bullets but American politicians would not do the needful. They are too cowardly to do the right thing.  Keeping their jobs in Congress, White House and elsewhere is all that concern them.


The same cowardice affects enacting other social policies that would solve the nation's problems, such as modifying capitalism and embracing robust mixed capitalist and socialist economy.


America must have the government pay the school fees of all young people through university and technical schools and provide publicly paid health insurance to all Americans.


America refuses to solve its serious problems but, instead, bandages their open wounds just because the politicians are too beholden to lobbyists.


The academics who are supposed to examine issues objectively and make recommendations called for by reason would not do so because they are too cowardly to speak the truth.  They know that the American political system was designed in the preindustrial and pre urban eighteenth century and that it was not meant to solve the problems of today's industrial and urbanized society.


Whereas the outline of the US Constitution remains good, it needs to be tweaked to be able cope with present realities.


Who is going to bail the cat, call for needed changes? America is the land of cowards. This cowardice probably would continue and no problems solved until the political system collapses under the weight of its unsolved problems and social injustices. Another evil empire would have bitten the dust.


The decline and fall of the USA needs not happen; all that is needed to prevent it from happening is a little courage on the parts of Americans.


Americans need to grow a little spine and quit being such cowards; they would earn the world's respect if they did so; at the moment, to the rest of the world, they seem contemptible!


Ozodi Thomas Osuji


February 21, 2018




This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


(907) 310-8176



Ozodi Thomas Osuji

Each of us is born into the world with a real self. That real self is part of life. Life has consciousness and intelligence in it.

The real self, upon birth in a human body, on earth is now separated from unified life; it feels apart from all lives.

It becomes aware that body, its new home, is vulnerable and can be harmed and or destroyed by many environmental factors, people included; it feels weak and insecure.

It seeks ways to adapt to its physical and social environment. It comes up with another self that it believes that it needs to become to be able to survive in the new conditions it finds itself.

The new self is not its real self for its real self-did not have to struggle to survive; the real self being outside body is simply part of unified life, life that is outside body.

Now, the new self must struggle to survive.  This new self is a make belief self, a made up self, a persona, a mask. The human separated self-concept, the personality is a mask beneath which is the real self. Carl Jung said what I just said here; nevertheless, I am writing what seems self-evidently true to me.

The child tries to think and act from the new, make belief self. Over time, it comes to believe that it is the new make belief, false self.

The false self wants to seem powerful to be able to overcome the challenges of the physical and social environment; so it acts tough and powerful.

It wants to be liked by other people for it knows that if other people do not like it they could snuff out its life; it pleases people and conforms to social norms to be allowed to survive.

The new self-lives an "as if" existence; it acts as if it is the desired adaptive self that it is not. Alfred Adler explicated what I am saying here in his numerous writings on what he called the neurotic constitution.

As long as the individual lives "as if" it is the desired social self it is not living an authentic life; it is living a phony, sham and hypocritical life. It is attacking and denying its true self. Karen Horney, in her book, Neurosis and Human Growth, pretty much said everything I just said.

The person who lives as if he is the false self is full of fear, anxiety and anger and sadness, for anyone who denies and attacks his real self just to adapt to the external world must not be happy.


The individual must now consciously decide to stop trying to think and act from the false social self and stay quiet and do nothing unless he thinks and behaves from his real self.

When the individual stops trying to live from the ego, separated self, stops the act of being who he is not he experiences peace and joy, for he is now affirming its true self.  His body and mind is now calm.

From the place of calmness he can now start studying his world through the scientific method, not through its group's culture but through pure empiricism that observes phenomena as it is and tries to understand it without any prejudices.

The real self objectively explores his physical, biological and social environment and in the process discovers true knowledge of the world (as the physical sciences are doing).

One must resolve to live from one's real self not from one's false, ego ideal, powerful and supposedly perfect self.


I am an Igbo. As an Igbo, I naturally pay attention to Igbos behaviors. Their behavior patterns are pretty much my behavior patterns. Therefore, I am not merely projecting what I see in me to them.  I am using the ego defense mechanism called projective identification to understand them.

Igbos generally reject their real selves; they do not even know that they have real selves. In childhood they reject their real selves and posited idealized, imaginary powerful selves that they believe that if they become it that their people would accept them. Thus, they embark on thinking, speaking and acting from the false, powerful self. That gives them that quality that other people hate: arrogance.

The origin of Igbo neurosis is both biological and historical. Obviously, they inherited biological issues that make them feel inadequate and dispose them to seek compensatory powerful selves. Those biological issues are beyond the scope of this essay.

Contemporary Igbos look around and realize that they are, at least, two thousand years behind Europeans in material culture. Indeed, they are, at least, five hundred years behind their fellow Africans such as Hausa, Yoruba and Edo, for those attained feudal social organization whereas they remained primitive in their social structure. They decided to pretend to be superior to those who are actually socially superior to them! Hence their pretense of superiority to other Nigerians; this act is childish.

Lately, in an attempt to seem developed and wash away their primitive status they tried to steal other people's history and culture. They see that Jews have four thousand years of written history, a history of excellence, so they tried to steal it; they tried to appropriate Jewish history and culture by claiming to be Jews! Genetic tests show the obvious: they are Negro Africans not Semitic Jews.


Igbos can and must resolve to live from their real selves and stop the childishness of trying live from their imaginary, superior self. When they do so they would become mature instead of the immature children they currently come across as.


When a person feels weak and compensates with false superiority and power and acts powerful, ideal and perfect to the world that person seems tough but in fact he is merely accentuating his weakness. He is reinforcing his weakness by trying to seem tough.

The more you behave as if you are the imaginary powerful self the more that you are saying that you are weak!

How do you become strong? You become strong by not denying what you see in you. If you see weakness in you accept it. Say to yourself that you are Weak. Refuse to pretend to be tough.

When you accept your reality of weakness and inferiority you learn an interesting lesson. You are neither weak nor strong; you are neither inferior nor superior. What you are is beyond yin and yang, black and white, dark and light. You are life itself. Life transcends any definitional category. You cannot define life, for to define it is to limit it; life is limitless and, therefore, cannot be defined. Life simply is.

Life is beyond human ego understanding.

In accepting your physical weakness, the weakness of the ego and not desiring ego power that you cannot have you reach your real self, a self that is part of all power. What that self and power is we cannot explain with words.

I reached this conclusion by observing myself. As a person I feel somatically weak and desired power and pretended to be strong. The more I acted as if I am strong the more I feel weak. Restituting with false strength does not give me strength; in fact, it accentuated my weakness.

My father was like me; he, too, felt physically weak and compensated with drive towards power and remained weak.

My grandfather, too, felt weak and compensated with false ego strength. He talked and acted tough but even as a child I knew that he was merely pretending toughness and was not tough. It would have been better for him to accept his weakness and not pretend to be tough.

Igbos act tough and pretend strength but are weak. They boast about their imaginary strength but say boo and they run and go hide!

The first woman in my life felt weak and wanted me to idealize her but I did not realize that she was doing what I was doing, trying to seem better than she was. If she had accepted her weakness and not desired perfection life would have been peaceful for her and those around her.

My daughter talks tough but as you get to know her you realize that she lacks inner sense of efficacy to do anything; she does not actually fight for social causes that would make people see her as having inner strength; all she does is talk tough and verbally abuse her parents to make her seem powerful in her mind.  Ironically, she wants the parents that she daily verbally abuse to materially support her. If she actually felt powerful would she want other people to support her? Of course not!

The point is that those who act tough are reinforcing their weakness. Therefore, neurotic compensation with superiority doesn't do what it is supposed to do, make folks feel powerful but instead reinforce their weakness.

Accept your weakness; having done so you learn that you are neither weak nor strong; you learn that there is a power in you that exceeds strength and weakness.

When you learn that those who act strong are weak you feel compassion for them because you know that they are reinforcing their weakness; you know that the only way for people to overcome their sense of weakness is for them to accept it and then let it go.

Since I learned that Igbos are weak despite their boastfulness I developed tremendous compassion for them.  Instead of anger at them when they start boasting about their fantasy power I am amused and feel sorry for them.

Compassion and forgiveness emanates from understanding why people do what they do. I now have compassion for my father, grandfather, daughter and all people that act as if they are powerful persons that they are not. I gently ask that they let go of their wish for power and relax into their real selves and in it derive real power, power based on peace not war.

I seem obsessed with Igbos; folks ask me: why wouldn't you just let go of Igbos? Why don't you just leave these proud people alone and move on with your own life?

There is a method to my obsessive-compulsive madness.


It is in understanding the insane games that Igbos and other people play that I understand my own insane games and give them up.  We understand ourselves by understanding other people.

We recognize that we currently live from false social selves, masks, and give them up and live from our real selves. At this point in time we do not even know who our real self is; we have denied him so much and for so long that we no longer know who he is.

Actually, we came to this world of space, time and matter to deny our real self; we came here for self-forgetting; the long term goal is to remember our real self.

We must begin to study and try to understand our real self and live from it for it is in doing so that we live in peace and happiness.

Salvation means returning to the awareness of our real self and living from it.  The real self is love. What is love?

Whatever love is, it is now crystal clear to me that not for a second have I loved me, or love other people, not my ex-wife and children. I have not loved people to the point of sacrificing my life for them.

I lived to pursue ideals and power; that is why I have not been able to love any one. To pursue ideals and power is to be egoistic; to be egoistic is to be the opposite of love.

Love is union with all people; ego is separation from other people; love moves towards people; ego moves away from people.

And before I feel guilty I must remind myself that nobody has loved me to the point of sacrificing their lives for me, either, so it is a wash.

That reality acknowledged yet I must love me and other people; this is because to love me and other people is good for me and us, it gives us peace and joy and a sense of security.


My weak and pained body disposed me to reject it and seek ideal body, powerful body. The trajectory of my life is idealistic. To deny this reality is to deny the reality of my being.

If you deny your reality you are unrealistic. My reality is idealism. But excessive idealism is immaturity since it does not produce what it is expected to produce, nor does it make other people, those you pleased, to do any good for you.

Accept your reality and deal with its shortcomings; change them without denying your reality. I will always be idealistic and seek power for that is how my mind works, from a minus state to a plus state. But I can understand the process and moderate it with reason.

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

February 19, 2018



Monday, 19 February 2018 03:34

A review of the Black Panthers


Ozodi Thomas Osuji

Last night, I was in my house watching television when my phone rang. A friend, Professor Stephen Schwartz (he teaches biology at the University of Washington, Seattle) was on the other end of the phone. He asked me whether I had seen Black Panther. I said no. He suggested that I go watch it so that we may compare notes on it. I did.

As is my habit, when I see a significant movie or read a good book I write a review of it and share the review with the world.  Here is a review of sorts of the movie, Black Panthers. This review is written immediately upon my getting home from the theatre. Perhaps, if I give it more time and let it sink into my subconscious mind I would be more thorough and less hasty in my review? Who cares?

Let us give some context to the movie. In the 1960s there was an African American separatist movement centered at Oakland, California, called the Black Panthers. Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver and Bobby Seal were the founders of the Black Panthers. The movement attracted all sorts of radical black Americans, including Angela Davis (who was a professor at my Alma Matta, UCLA).

The philosophy of the Black Panthers was black separatism, as opposed to Martin Luther King's integrationism. They, including Stockley Carmichael, aka Kwame Toure, author of the book, Black Power, had had enough of white police abuse of African Americans and living as second class citizens in the USA. They felt that they are a colonized people, packed like sardines into the ghettos of American cities, not given jobs but drugs sold to them by white folks, drugs to use in destroying themselves.

They organized to try to liberate their colony, what Kenneth Clark called the "Dark Ghetto", from the colonizer.

They had read and imbibed such liberation psychologists as Franz Fanon, Black Skin and White Mask, the Wretched of the Earth; Albert Memi, The colonizer and the colonized; Jewish Psychoanalytical studies on what racism did to black folks, such as Kardinar and Oversay, The Mark Of Oppression; Bertram Karon, the Negro Personality; Thomas Pettigrew, A Profile of the Black American; and books by black sociologists, such as Franklin Frazier's the "Negro middle class" and Stanley Elkins, "Sambo".

Liberation psychologists and sociologists pointed out that racism made black Americans doubt their manhood and transformed them into groveling Uncle Toms who laughed and jived but lacked the courage to talk back to the slave master.

Octavia O. Manini, in his study of the blacks of Madagascar, talked about Prospero and Caliban, how colonialists made Africans perpetual children who looked on white folks as adults and tried to please them and feared what they would do to black folks.

We were told that the colonizer was a  terrorist who used intimidation and fear to terrorize African Americans into obeying whatever the terrorists asked them to do or else they are jailed or killed; the colonizer intimidated African Americans to accepting that to be black is to be no good.

Walter Rodney, from British Guyana, told us how Europe underdeveloped Africa by carting its raw resources to the metropolis, Europe, processing them into finished goods and reselling them at exorbitant prices in the periphery, Africa.

The colonially conquered African American struggled to seem white like. As Malcolm X told us in his Autobiography, Negroes straightened their hair to make it seem like white folks hair; they pretended to be white and were ashamed of their blackness.

To the Negros of the pre-1960s, Africa was a primitive place and they did not want anything to do with it.

Liberation psychologists entered the picture and told black Americans that they got it upside down, that white folks are savages and that they ought to have contempt for them, and have nothing do with them. They encouraged black folks to develop pride in themselves.

Thus, the rhythm and blues musician, James Brown, sang "I am black and proud", although he still conked his hair, meaning that he had not accepted his blackness!

As we talk, Michelle Obama, like most black women, still straighten their hair to make it look like Caucasian women's hair; this means that their standard of beautify is Europe not Africa.

Indeed, in contemporary Africa the women are still straightening their hair and bleaching their skin to make their skins look white. They say that the highest form of respect is imitation; black folks are still imitating white folks meaning that they see Africa as primitive and want to dissociate from it.

Liberation sociologists and psychologists tried to wean black folks from their shame over Africa and their black color; they urged black folks to embrace their African heritage and quit being ashamed of it.

Huey Newton and his black Panthers group trained and armed themselves pretty much as Robert Mugabe did in Southern Rhodesia and Steve Biko did in Southern Africa. Colonized folks organize militia to fight the colonizers.

The Oakland Black Panthers engaged in running battles with the "man" and his colonial troops, white police in the ghetto. These people struggled but the man apparently defeated them for most of them eventually took refuge in cocaine and other drugs.

The man inundated ghettos with drugs, to get the denizens to destroy themselves with those mood altering agents, pretty much as Native Americans were deliberately addicted to alcohol and with which they are gradually eradicating themselves from the surface of the earth.

The brothers used drugs to escape from their painful plight; the man arrested them and imprisoned them for possession of drugs. Three strikes (arrested for possessing drugs) and you are out (you are put in prison for life).

The man appears to have won the battle and his colonization of the black mind prevails. But has he conquered the African mind?

This movie, Black Panthers, appropriately began in the ghettos of Oakland, the inner city part of San Francisco, California.  It showed black kids doing what black kids do in the ghetto: shooting hoops (basketball).

The movie quickly transmuted to action movie. Think James Bond, 007, in her majesty's service and licensed to kill on behalf of Albion, Avalon, the misty, emerald Island.

The scenes read like what one would find in a teenage boys action magazines (in fact, when I was in secondary school in Nigeria we had such a magazine where a black hero was all over the place saving damsels in distress).

There is a fictional country in Africa called Wakanda (Uganda or Kenya...I say so because of the Massaih motif in the people's attire and dance patterns).  The country is incredibly modernized; it has amazing technological prowess. Its technological gizmos are rooted in a rare mineral it possesses, a sort of wonder version of diamond or Chromium.

With that mineral they performed all kinds of wonders, including healing people by merely placing the mineral on wounds.  Naturally, the rest of the world envied what they have and wanted to get their hands on it (think blood diamonds in Liberia and elsewhere in Africa).

Out of nowhere, a black chap was shown at a museum in London looking at an axe that apparently was made from this rare wonder mineral. He confronted a lady museum staff telling her that they, the colonizers, stole the axe from his country. Apparently, that was a ruse for eventually he and his coterie stole the axe and escaped in an ambulance.

They planned to sell it in South Korea and make loads of dough and eventually find their way to Africa and lay their grubby hands on the source of the wonder mineral. Think Cecil Rhodes colonizing Africa to get all kinds of minerals from Joseph Conrad's the Heart of Darkness.

In Soul, Korea we were entertained with high tech gismo scenes, fights in an incredible futuristic city.   The fight entailed the King of Wakanda and his lady warriors (Dahomey's Amazons come to mind) retrieving what were taken from their country from the folks trying to sell it. They did not succeed and returned to Africa empty handed.

Apparently, the black American chap who was part of the heist group that stole the wonder mineral from the British museum worked for the CIA and had fought for America in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is supposed to represent the black Americans sold by Africans and thus has some animus and angst towards Africans.

(Africans are actually not aware of how much anger is in the souls of Africans Americans towards them, for selling them; when their battle with the white man is over they will probably turn their attention to Africans and get even with those who callously captured and sold them and do not feel guilt or remorse for their criminal action but, instead, blame the white man for their iniquity. Africans must apologize to African Americans.)

His goal was to return to Africa and reclaim what he lost, take back the ruler ship of Africa from the Africans who sold his ancestors to the white man.

He did return to Africa and had a duel with the king of Wakanda. They dueled to death. He defeated the king and was made the king.

In effect, the black American has reclaimed the Africa that Africans sold him from; he is now the king of Africa.

However, his psychology is that of a mercenary; he was out to become rich from selling the rare mineral found in Africa; he was not interested in the welfare of Africans, people in his new kingdom; if anything, he was angry at them for selling him to the white man.

The king of Africa that he supposedly defeated survived his fall over a cliff; his body was fished out of a river at the bottom of the cliff.  A rival African tribal group kept him alive by immersing his comatose body in ice. Eventually, his girl (kind of like James Bond girl) came along and used a piece of the wonder mineral she had on her to resuscitate him.

He then went back to reclaim his throne from the returned African America. Both of them fought it out. The cinematography exhibited in the fight is reminiscent of what we saw in Star wars series, it is simply magical and unbelievable. This is big budget movie, not the mom and pop budget type of movie you find in black movies. The shooting of these amazing scenes probably took over a year to choreograph?

Eventually, the African king killed the African American king of Africa. The movie ended with the African king kissing, and I suppose, marrying his Nubian queen.

Most of the female, indeed male characters in the movie are jet black, the darkest variety of Africans, kind of like southern Sudanese (Dinka people). They are not your middle class Negro blacks; Negroes prefer the Coretta Kings of this world (fair complexioned black women).

Apparently, the goal here  is continuation of the 1960s "I am black and proud" philosophy, not the Ebony, Jet and Essence magazines light complexioned women liked by Washington DC phony middle class negroes (Kwame Toure made fun of such negroes who talk black but prefer white).

What can one say about this movie? It is kind of like what you would find in teenage boys' action hero magazines. The plot is pure fantasy and has nothing to do with the real world.

What makes it exceptional is the cinematography and technological wizardry involved. One cannot really say that one learned a profound lesson from the movie, for its story line is imaginary and not in the realm of the real world.

It is good that an African-American male action movie was given such attention and expense in making it. We are making progress; black is now indeed beautiful; black folks are proud of their skin color, at least, in the movie, not in real life.

In real life, Middle Class black Americans prefer brown, mixed black chicks like Vanessa Williams and Halle Berry; indeed, the Clarence Thomas of them marry white women (Franz Fanon and Richard Wright who talked smack on racism married white women).

I am going to bet that middle class Negroes would be disappointed by the Movie. As Fela Kuti would say, mentally colonized Africans, despite their idle talk of black is beautiful, hate black skin. They will look for an excuse to hate this black centered movie (or should we call it, Molefe Ashanti's Afrocentric movie?).

I have already heard that these folks are already making noises to the effect that they have black heroes in folks like Dr. Ben Carson (the single Uncle Tom in the King Narcissist's cabinet).

I say go and see the movie, Black Panthers, not because you are going to learn some profound life lessons from it. It is just a teenage boys' action movie.

Life is painful; we sometimes need escape into fantasy; this movie is a useful escape into fantasy. Enjoy it but do not think about it. Too much thinking about it spoils it!

Post Script:

I whipped out this cursory review two hours upon returning home from the theater; I reserve the right to revise it!


Ozodi Thomas Osuji

February 18, 2018

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(907) 310-8176



Ozodi Thomas Osuji

I look around me and see a screwed up world. I want to unscrew up that world. I come up with all sorts of idealistic ways to change and improve the world. But over time I learned that I cannot change other people and cannot change the external world.

I live in North America. I see a country controlled by white men, men who do not want to solve any problem; they always kick the can down the road, never really solving any problem; they muddle through with no problem solved. You know that they are merely buying time and that by and by they must solve the country's problems; they cannot keep on postponing the inevitable solutions.

America operates a capitalist economic system; any one with eyes sees that whereas capitalism is very productive it has problems. In capitalism a few win and the many lose. It is inherent for capitalism to be that way. Thus, to make it fair for all it must be modified.

Socialism, the apparent alternative to capitalism, sounds good on paper but in practice stifles incentive to work hard and produce so it is really not the alternative.  People tend to work hardest when they are pursuing their personal interests and hope to make profits; working for the good of the collectivity does not engender the same motivation that capitalism does. Human beings are selfish animals and work best when they are pursuing their selfish goals.

Never mind what Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke etc. said; I understand the economic and political literature of the West; here, I am speaking from what makes sense to me. Take it or leave it.

Common sense tells us to retain capitalism but borrow whatever is good in socialism and use it to make the capitalist economy  work for most people; this would entail having a mixed capitalist-socialist economy; we must have the public pay for all children's education through university and pay for all peoples health insurance. Having done those and a few other things we leave it to people to fend for themselves.

If you want to be rich go work for it but if material things do not excite you then work minimally for the little you desire for a simple life.

We know that democracy, as it operates in the USA, is really not democracy; what the USA has is a mix of oligarchy and plutocracy, rule by the few wealthy or the agents of the wealthy. Those with money buy political offices for either themselves or for their agents; therefore, we need to modify our political system and move towards Scandinavian type social democracy.

We must tweak our political economy to make it serve all people but the white rulers of the land would not do so.  It is as if they are paralyzed and cannot do the needful thing.

Long ago, I concluded that the rulers of America are contemptible and despicable people. I often refer to them as sub-human beings; they are not what human beings ought to be.

Africans are no alternative to the West. Give Africans the opportunity to rule themselves and their leaders become dictators and thieves. Just about all African countries are ruled by autocrats and kleptocrats. Thus, Africans are really not relevant in discussing what to do about the human polity. One cannot borrow from America and or from Africa.

I am an African and American so I talk about the problems of Africa and America. I am not an Asian and therefore have no qualification to talk about Asia. However, I have studied Asian religions and philosophies: Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism; I borrow from them what is good for me.

I pay particular attention to why most Asian economies are corporatist, not capitalist or socialist; in most Asian countries the state works in conjunction with the private sector. Is corporatism the best type of economy or just the type that works well in Asia, given Asians Confucian culture?


Given that the external world seems bleak, what is one to do?  What one needs to do is to recognize that the external world exist not for one to correct it, for one cannot correct it; one cannot change other people's behaviors; the external world and other people exist to show one what one needs to correct in one's self.

The external world is the projection of our collective thinking in the past and present. Since it is the product of the collectivity one as an individual cannot change it; it requires all the thinkers, projectors to change the entire world.

The screwed up external world one sees shows one one's own screwed up inner world.  It is not for me to change the outside world but for me to change one's inner world.

I have ideas on what the external world needs to do to become better. I have ideas on how to reorganize America and Africa (to social democracy with mixed economy) and make them work for all of us. I do not have the ability to change America, Africa and the outside world. What I can do is correct my inner world and apply all those ideas I want to use to improve the world to improve me.

The external world, such as the Igbos whose arrogant behaviors I detest, show me a world that I do not want to be like and urging me to change that world inside me, not change the external world.

I can work on changing the inner me, not the chimera of changing other people. For example, I cannot change Igbos, Nigerians, Africans and Americans but I can change me.

What I see in other people are in me so I must work to change me and not worry about other people and the world.

I know when I am changed; when I am changed I am quiet and am no longer given to anger and annoyance at the apparent rotten external world.

The ego asks me to focus on the outside world and change it knowing full well that I cannot change other people and the external world.

The world would remain the same way it has always been, imperfect, but I can change me so as to respond to it differently, this time calmly, fearlessly and without anger.


The Roman stoic philosopher, Epictetus, said that it is not the outside world and what is happening in it that makes one fearful, angry or sad but how one chooses to see that world. We can choose to see the same old world differently.

Other people's behavior that used to make one angry will still be there but one would respond to it differently.

That is, if one changes one's perception, thinking and cognitions one would change one's emotions and responses to the world.

You can change your cognition and behavior while the people out there remain the same, imperfect.  What used to annoy you, you now respond to with emotional equanimity; you are no longer a yoyo on a string pulled about by factors external to you.

Thus, it is not what other people do that makes you annoyed or fearful or sad but your inner mind, your thinking and perception of what they did.

It is your interpretation of what you think that the world is, what other people do, that affects your feelings, not the world itself.

What the world is none of us knows for sure but our perception of it determines our responses to it.


One must stop trying to change other people, social institutions and the world; if one does so one becomes a grownup person who is calm most of the time; but if one persists in trying to change other people's behaviors and change the world one will remain a child and will be prone to anger, fear and sadness.

Idealism, the wish to change the external world, is probably the most source of personal unhappiness. Give up idealism and embrace realism; realism is living with the world as it is.

One does not have the power to change other people and the world. What one has power to do is to change one's inner self, one's thinking and how one sees the world.

Actually, one does not need to change ones inner self and world; all that one is required to do is to stay quiet and not desire to change anything, inside or outside one. One must give up the wish to recreate one's self and the world and live with the world as it is.

This does not mean tolerating injustice, discrimination and slavery; one must struggle to make the world a just place; it is fear and cowardice that lead people to tolerate social abuses; if you are fearless and are willing to die for justice no one can enslave you.


If you feel physically weak you may have posited an ego ideal and power and seek to become them. You may find yourself pretending to be your ego ideal self and trying to act as if you have the power and strength that you wished that you have.

The fact is that in body you are not strong and not powerful and not ideal; in body you are always weak and imperfect; do not pretend to be powerful and ideal; such pretense leads to developing neurosis, more specifically, delusion disorder.

If you go to nursing homes and assisted living houses where older people (they are usually over age seventy five) live you find older people who have lost their youthful vigor pretending to still have physical power and thus are deluded. Their doctors give them medications for psychosis.

You do not have to develop psychosis by pretending that you are powerful and ideal.  You ought to just be who you are, weak and imperfect; do not pretend that you are what you are not, strong and perfect for you are not.

If you do not pretend to be who you are not, powerful and perfect and simply be who you are, weak, you tend to be peaceful and happy.


Lately, I have been telling me that I am not a loving person.  So, what exactly is love? What does love mean?

Does love mean being caring for people, being kind and doing things for other people?  Of course, in a world of scarcity where some persons do not have much it is nice to care and be kind towards people; if you have the ability to meet other people's needs you ought to help them but caring behavior is scarcely what love means. That definition of love is negative, for it means meeting needs people have.

In love there is no need outside you and other people for you to meet.

Love does nothing; love simply is. Love is who we are so when we love all we do is being ourselves. Love is peace and joy; peace and joy simply flows from one to other people not because they asked for it but because peace and joy is a giving thing; if you have love you give it to people for the nature of love is giving. Love cannot be contained.


Love is the state of egoless union with all people. In love you give up your ego sense of separation and have a self that does not see itself as separated from other people; love is union with all; in union you have a self that unifies with other egoless selves but neither of you feels apart from others.

In love you are not affirming your ego separated self; in love you are in being with all selves and with God.

I found a need to clarify the nature of love for the ego can appropriate the idea of love and make one feel guilty for not loving people or a person, such as ones spouse.

You cannot not love people; you always love people. However, if you are in ego state you defend your ego and are not aware that at a deeper level you always love all people. God created us as love and we always love but in the world of separation we may seem not to love ourselves and other people. If that is the case there is no need to feel guilty, as the ego wants you to feel; just remove the ego and you know that you already always love you and all people.

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

February 16, 2018



Ozodi Thomas Osuji

This morning I wrote an essay titled: I want worth and you want worth so let us pretend that we have worth.  It is a kind of spoof on Thomas Harris' book, "I am Ok and you are Ok", and Eric Bernes book, "Games people play". Both psychiatrists were transactional analysis psychologists; they told us that when people meet they play games with each other.

When you and I meet, I tell you what I think that you want to hear and you tell me what you think that I want to hear; we tell each other positive things. In so doing we get along with each other.

In my hypothesis, I tell you that you are significant and you tell me that I am significant and thus both of us feel reassured that we have worth and get along with each other.

But the moment that either of us removes worth from the other we quarrel, fight and may even kill each other. I concluded that that being the case we must strive to always respect all human beings, and do so for our own good, to avoid setting people up to harm us.

Today, at a Florida high school, a 19 year old young man, Nikolas Cruz, came to his former school with a rifle and with many magazines and began randomly shooting at students. Apparently, he pulled the fire alarm to get the students to leave their classrooms and come out to the hall ways so as to offer him a large number of targets to shoot at.

By the time he was finally subdued by the police he had killed seventeen people and wounded many others.

Why did he do it? I do not know and no one really knows. He was captured alive so I am supposing that in the next few days and weeks the police and their forensic psychologists would know all there is to know about him and come up with some ideas on his motives.

I have not seen this man but based on what I know about such killers I bet you that he fits the following profile.

He is probably a loner. He probably did not have many friends at school and outside school. He probably did not have the courage to talk to girls and have girlfriends; he probably felt that if he talked to girls that they would reject him and to avoid been rejected he avoided talking to girls hence ended up without a girlfriend (and outlet for his libido). He probably felt that other students (or just one student) did not like him and that they made fun of him (this may or may not be true, it might be only in his mind, what matters is not reality but his belief; folks act on the basis of their beliefs, not reality; what is reality, anyway?).

All told, the young man probably did not feel like he belonged to any of the in-groups and cliques that young people have and felt all alone in the world.

He probably thought about guns and learned what guns could do to people. If you own a high powered rifle that can carry magazines that hold many bullets (some magazines can have space for up to one hundred bullets) and realized that he could buy many magazines, that is, have hundreds if not thousands of bullets available to him to shoot at people. He probably realized how many people he could kill in a short period of time.

In thirty minutes, if you have the right weapon you can kill a hundred or more people. Well, he probably realized the type of mayhem he could inflict on students and that kind of made him feel powerful. Killing many people would make him feel famous and gratify his desire for attention (we are talking about him, are we not; if he had not done what he did I would not be writing this essay this evening).

The musing that he has power over life and death, that he could kill as many people as his gun allows him to, probably made him feel like he is god and made him feel invincible.

Thus thinking, fantasizing, really, he obtained a rifle and magazines of bullets and walked into his old high school and began shooting. The rest is history.

This type of thing happens all the time. So, what is the point in talking about it?  The point in talking about it is that we know the profile of potential killers and can use that information to mitigate their killing.

We can identify such persons and get them the help they need. If this kid was identified by his teachers and school counselors and referred to a good psychotherapist he would have been counseled and probably would not have done what he did?

No one can prevent a person who wants to kill from doing so but if we identify some such persons perhaps we can prevent a few of them from killing people.

I know enough to realize that anti-social personalities, aka sociopaths and psychopaths generally have under socialized sense of fellow feeling; they do not have love and respect for other people; they do not feel compassion for people; they do not feel guilt or remorse from harming people; they simply tell themselves that a person or persons detracted from their narcissistic desire for importance, their pride and vanity and resolve to get even with that person (s).

They may kill that person and not feel bad from doing so.  Sadistic sociopaths actually enjoy harming and or killing people; antisocial behaviors give them excitement and thrill. Planning how to harm and kill people gives the sadistic person pleasure.

We cannot always prevent sociopaths from inflicting injury on society but we can understand them and try our best not to enable them to do what they do.

How do we reduce sociopaths tendency to harming people? We do so from not doing those things that trigger their ego to feel narcissistic rage and seek assuaging their injured pride in killing people.

We know that all people are motivated by desire to seem important and worthy; we are driven by desire for existential significance.

If we look around we know that our bodies will die and smell like feces; we know that nature has no regards for us for any number of things could destroy our lives. We feel like we have no worth. Additionally, we do not see any meaning and purpose, beyond the mythologies of religion, to our lives.

If you make a person feel insignificant you have psychologically attacked him; that attack is actually more painful than physical attack; people do forget physical attack on their bodies but not psychological detraction from their fancied self-worth.

Most people will simply note that you insulted them and move away from you, but probably will not easily forgive you.  But one in many will seek to get back at you. He can do so by putting obstacles on your path or if he is the actively vengeful type by literally attacking, harming or killing you.

If you humiliate folks many will simply ignore you but the chances are that a few will seek to get even with you. They will do it in their own specific way. How they will do it we cannot predict.

If this is the case, and it is, it behooves you, if you are rational, to try not to humiliate any human being. You should never try to shame a person, and make him feel small.

You must always try to uplift people's already downtrodden spirits; existence makes us doubt our significance so do not add to it by insulting people; praise people to make them feel good about their lives. If you cannot say something positive about people then keep quiet and say nothing.

If your belief is that if you humiliate a person he would disappear from the scene you are an idiot. Those who, upon your insult, disappear from the scene are actually those who are more likely to cool headedly plan on how to liquidate you!


Many Igbos come to the public square with only one goal in mind: insult Nigerians, put them down and in every which way they can degrade Nigerians and whoever does not agree with their mostly infantile perspective on politics.

I cannot begin telling you how many put down names these folks called me. Apparently, in their childish minds they have humiliated me and I would then shut up.

The most amazing part of it is that most of these verbal abusers did not go to university and yet they felt qualified to degrade a chap with a doctorate degree from one of the world's elite universities and is a professor. That is how arrogant that these Igbos are.

Instead of making me to disappear, their insults led me to focus on them like a laser beam, study them and came up with fuller understanding of who they are.

Before they begin verbally abusing me, honestly, I did not pay attention to them; as far as I was concerned they did not cross my radar, they did not exist and were not my concern. My concern was, and still is, philosophy, psychology and politics and physics.

But because they undertook to verbally abuse me I studied them and came to the sad but empirically factual conclusion that many of them have delusion of superiority. They fancy themselves superior and place themselves on a pedestal; from that false exalted status they judge other people, find them not good enough relative to their imaginary ideal behaviors and desecrate them.

They forget that if any rational person looks at them he would find them, as Frederic Lugard found them to be: savages of the lower Niger (see Lord Lugard, The British Dual Mandate in Tropical Africa).

They did not develop social structures for governing beyond their villages; they had no Igbo wide political structure for governing themselves hence anthropologists call them primitive, stateless people; they had no writing; they did not develop the wheel, a prerequisite for civilization; they were mostly naked when the white man came to their world; and worse, they were capturing and selling their people to whoever wanted to buy them.

It took the white man, Lugard and his West African Frontier Army, to actually march through their villages in 1902 to stop them from capturing and enslaving their people.

I doubt that they now value human life, for, as we talk, they easily kidnap and hold their people hostage until monetary ransom is paid to them; they easily sacrifice people to their nonexistent gods.

The point is that these people verbally abuse people without realizing what abused people can do to them.

One Nigerian alone abused by these people can inflict enormous damage to them. The kid at Florida killing and hurting many folks ought to tell Igbos what a determined individual can do to them. They ought to learn and stop verbally abusing people and learn to respect people.

They ought to give up their idiotic sense of superiority and see all people as equal and respect all human beings.

Ah, I am making noise for I know that deluded people like their fictional sense of superiority; no rational feedback makes them give it up. If they no longer see themselves as false gods they would grapple with our existential reality, our nothingness and from so doing become a humble and civilized people.

It does not matter that I am making noise since I know that these people are not going to heed any advice and change their irritating delusions. Nevertheless, folks like me who insist on articulating the truth regardless of whether mankind listen to us or not must do what we exist to do, state the truth as we see it.

In sum, the killing at a Florida, USA, high school tells us that one aggrieved human being can inflict maximum damage on people. The lesson is for all of us to try our utmost best not to alienate any human being.

I was shocked to come to Nigerian Internet forums to read adult Igbos write about their imaginary superiority and taking pride in insulting Nigerians. I could not believe what such folks do. I wondered whether they came from an alien planet and, as a result, do not understand human nature.

Human nature knows that as biological beings we are animals that have no existential worth. We are unique animals in that unlike other animals we want to seem to have worth.

People want you to respect them; if you disrespect them you asked them to kill you. There is a price for being stupid. Nature does not make allowances for your stupidity; it gives you its consequence.

Learn to respect and love all people; do so if you want to have smooth sailing through life; do not do so and your living on planet earth becomes a nightmare of your making.


I am not given to boasting. Nevertheless, the fact is that each of us has certain skills that other people may not have. I have diagnostic skills seldom found in other mental health professionals. Generally, within an hour of seeing a person I can give him a diagnosis, if he has one, and once given he can go to anybody else for assessment and my assessment would not be invalidated.

For example, in 2015 Donald Trump came down an escalator in his Trump Tower and declared his intention to become the president of the USA. Prior to that date I had not paid attention to him; I dismissed him as an illiterate real estate mogul.

Upon seeing the man talk I went to my computer and typed a profile of him:  narcissistic personality disorder with antisocial features. He is always seeking attention and admiration from people and will use you and discard you for he has no love for any one. I posted my assessment of the man in social media. Later on, other mental health professionals began to parrot what took me a few minutes to assess.

In this essay I noted that many Igbos have a tendency to insulting people and that that behavior is rooted in their psychological issues. Many Igbos have group delusion disorder, paranoia and narcissism.

If they are rational they could learn and stop being the pain in the ass that they currently are. A bunch of primitives running around fancying themselves superior persons are a laughing stock. What are they superior in: physics, psychology, chemistry, biology, philosophy, technology?

Imagine what they would have claimed to be if they were in the position of white men, folks who are, at least, in science and technology, two thousand years ahead of Africans; they would have felt like the gods.

Rational white folks know that despite their civilizational advantage all of us, regardless of race and gender, are equal.

You must see you as the same and coequal with all human beings; it is in doing so that you are mentally healthy.

The moment that the fiction of superiority enters your mind you are deluded; to be deluded is to believe what is not true as true and act on it. Delusion is part of psychosis; the other part is hallucinations.

The deluded person can still hold down a job whereas the completely psychotic, such as schizophrenics, seldom can hold down a job.


Ozodi Thomas Osuji

February 14, 2018




Ozodi Thomas Osuji

Each human being desires worth; he wants other people to see him as having worth; I desire worth and you desire worth; two people get together and each expresses his desire for worth  to each other and if both agree and see each other as having worth they relate well to  the other.  Thus, people pretend to have worth and collude with each other to tell each other that they have worth.

The moment that you see other people as not having worth they will see you as not having worth and reject you; seeing you as worthless they believe that you ought to be enslaved or killed.

White racists see black folks as having no worth but see themselves as having worth; having convinced themselves that they have worth and black folks have no worth they feel justified in using black folks to do work for them, discriminating against them or killing them. A community is a group of human beings where members agree to see each other as having worth.

Racists feel that their own people have worth; if they do not see their people as having worth their people would reject them.

If you see a person as having no worth you have told him that you can use him as a slave or kill him; he would know that you have no regards for him; he would become afraid of you and struggle to take you down before you take him down.

We all, at the deeper level, know that society is a dance of let us pretend that we have worth; we know that we do not have worth but pretend to have it and as long as we pretend it we keep each other alive.

Existentially, people have no worth in body and ego? Why so? You can use or kill them. Hitler demonstrated this fact; he used and killed millions of people and no god stopped him from doing so. Hitler saw people as worthless.

As one sees other people one sees his self, so Hitler saw himself as worthless but hid this part from his conscious mind.

Worth is make belief; it is a made up, pretended thing; it does not exist in nature. You can decide that a person around you has no worth and treat him or her as such, even use him as a slave or kill him and no one can prevent you from doing so. Human civilization is a make belief thing; as an unreality any number of things could and do destroy it.

Was Hitler right in treating people as worthless? He was right in accepting that people have no existential worth but he did not have the right to kill any one. He gave his self the right to kill people.

Naturally, those he gave his self-permission to kill did not want to be killed and decided to fight with him, to kill him. The result was war.

One must leave people to live their worthless lives; you must leave people to have their pretended lives of worth.

The world exists to enable people to come and pretend to have worth in bodies and egos so let them have that pretense; all you have to do is to just know about what people are doing and be amused by it (as I am).

Let me quickly add that people have worth in unified spirit (God) but not in body and ego. The ego and body do not exist in reality; they have dream existence.

The physical universe and human civilization is a dream thing; they are not real; they disappear with the dream when the universe ends in a couple trillion years.

There is one law that you ought to obey: you must love you and all people; you must work to provide all children with education at all levels, university included, so that they can live optimally; you must work to provide all people with health insurance; after those public goods you must leave people to live as they desire, provided that they do not hurt other persons.  If the individual hurts other persons they will protect themselves by arresting him and putting him in prison or killing him.


Who do you think that you and human beings are? Take away all the mythologies that you have in your head, mythologies with which you give yourself fictional worth. Remove your religion and psychology of who you think that you are, now what do you see? You see an animal that is not different from other animals such as dogs and mosquitos.

Any human being who so wishes it could aim a loaded gun at your head, pull the trigger and in less than five minutes you are dead meat. Your body will decay and smell like shit.

Future dead flesh is who you are without your fictional worth. If this is the truth it follows that you must treat all people respectfully if you want them to keep you alive and they must respect you if they want you not to harm or kill them.

There is a self that has total worth; that self is the self in unified spirit, in God; we are not aware of that self; that self is sleeping and dreaming our physical universe; that self-projected itself to who you call yourself, the ego in body, a dream self.


Clearly, there is intelligence aka spirit in the universe; I do not know much about it but there is no doubt in my mind that there is intelligence in the universe. I take it as a non-material spiritual intelligence.

That intelligence manifests in body and on earth and feels weak and sees the world meaningless; it seeks ways to make itself feel that it has power and worth.

The individual's personality is his particular manner of finding worth and meaning in a world; to live in body is to be an animal that lives and dies and has no intrinsic worth and meaning.

Personality is the individual's pattern of finding worth and meaning in a world without worth and meaning; his worth and meaning are fictional for there can be no worth and meaning in this world. Worth and meaning can only exist in an eternal place, unified spirit state.

Since people in bodies have no worth and, in fact, exist only in dreams they go to war and kill each other and nothing did happen in those wars for they were dream wars; dream wars, like everything else people do on earth, make them feel alive when, in fact, they are not alive in egos and bodies; they are only alive in spirit; in spirit they are eternal.


It seems to me that I have no worth; you have no worth, either; I desire worth and you desire worth; if you see me as having worth I see you as having worth; if you see me as having no worth I feel angry at you and may even attack and kill you and you do the same to me.

Those people that we say have good self-esteem and self-confidence are folks who believe that as they are, egos and bodies, that they have worth and significance.

Those with low self-esteem have conscious awareness of their existential insignificance. Depression is extreme conscious awareness of one's nothingness.

When a person takes his significance for granted he sallies forth into the world and explores it, as in science and technology; this is one reason why all people must be treated with respect so that they develop relative positive self-esteem so as to be able to do science.

Those with negative self-esteem and self-confidence, such as many Africans, seldom do science and technology. Africans verbally beat their children down so that they grow up having low self-esteem hence lack the inquisitiveness to explore and understand their world scientifically.


The sentence, I want worth; you want worth sounds like a good title for a book, kind of like Thomas Harris's "I am ok and you are ok". I will consider it as a title for a self-help book I plan to write.

My existence tells me that I seek existential worth and significance and that all people do the same. We do so because we suspect that in ego and body we do not have existential worth. However, in spirit, which is eternal, we have worth and significance.

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

February 14, 2018



In the past, I made the mistake of believing that I could reason with Igbos and correct their insane behaviors (many of them have delusion disorder); I have learned from my mistake; I no longer argue with madmen; I leave them alone.

Many Igbos are literally crazy, they are deluded; they consider their deluded actions normal; you must not argue with them for it is like arguing with insane people.

Instead, if you are up to it, you whack them hard on their deluded heads and unbalance their brains; their shaken brains may make them think sensibly.

Ordinarily, they think like deluded persons and do not know that they are insane. Consider their belief that they are a superior people; all indicators show them as primitive savages; they had no writing and did not discover the wheel. Yet, they fancy themselves supermen.

You do not argue with such people but leave them to live in their fool's paradise. However, when they step out of line you can whack them hard on their deluded heads. That whacking scrambles their brains and at last makes them think and behave like sensible human beings, with humility and down to earth. It is, of course, not feasible to always whack them; I recommend that you just leaving them alone to wallow in their delusion of superiority.

Superiority is their defense against their underlying knowledge that as egos and bodies they have no existential worth.

As noted above, all human beings know that as egos and bodies they have no worth (but have worth in spirit).

If they are normal each of them says, in effect, "I want to have worth; you want to have worth" so, let us pretend to have worth; they give each other pretended worth and in so doing get along with each other.

In abnormal psychology, such as delusion disorder, the individual wants to have worth but does not want other people to have worth. In this light, Igbos want to have worth but take worth away from other people. Those they take worth away from resent them and whack them.

As long as Igbos disrespect other people they are destined to be intermittently attacked and killed. And don't go crying for them when they are attacked and or killed for the attack and killing takes place in dreams.

In reality no one is killed; they and all human beings remain eternal in God. On earth, in the dream of separation if Igbos want to have a  happy dream they have to give themselves pretended worth and give all people pretended worth; if they remove worth from some people those people will attack them and they will keep having their nightmarish dreams.

As egos they will keep blaming those who attacked them whereas in truth they made the attacks on them inevitable by withdrawing worth from them.

Post Script:

I deserve to be paid millions of dollars by Igbos for sharing this information with them; I give it to them for free. Like idiots they do not know who has their best interest at heart; they think that those who collude with their delusion and tell them that they are superior people are their friends; those enable them set up scenarios for them to be killed when they feel superior to other people and or insult other people, as is their habit.  Every human being has what it takes to kill you if he wants to do so; therefore, if you want to live in ego and body you play his and your game of let us pretend to have worth. Give people worth and they keep you alive in the dream of separation and make it a happy dream for you; the moment you withdraw worth from people, disrespect them your life is now in their hands; they decide when to kill you (you make such decision to kill them if they disrespect you).

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

February 14, 2018


Tuesday, 13 February 2018 00:07

Fear shapes extant human civilization



Ozodi Thomas Osuji

Yesterday, I wrote about Africans and Nigerians being fearful cowards who out of fear of harm and death tolerate abuses by the criminals that rule them. What I wrote is observable, empirical fact. However, let me quickly say that the same phenomenon is found in all human beings: black, white and Asians. All people are fearful.

It is fearfulness and the desire to live in body and fear of death that made it possible for governments to coral people and control them.  Most governments are unjust, be they monarchies, oligarchies, plutocracies and so-called democracies; they all entail a few persons telling the many what to do and punishing or even killing them when they do not do as told to do.

It is fear that makes human civilization possible. Without fear people would not be human beings and would not be on earth (by earth I mean our three or four dimensional universe).  Most things that people do on earth are motivated by fear, by desire to protect their vulnerable bodies.

People tend to see the death of their bodies as the death of their egos (the consciousness of separated self in each of them). They fear finitude and oblivion and would do anything to seem alive, even if it means tolerating slavery from the person pointing guns at them.

Only one person in millions would tell the person pointing a loaded gun at them to go ahead and shoot if the alternative is servitude to him; such less fearful persons are the handful of free human beings on earth. The rest of the people are, in one form or another, slaves.

As slaves they have hope of a future freedom from slavery but they merely go from one slave status to another (for example, white Americans are wage slaves whereas Africans and African-Americans are undisguised slaves).

Without fear this world, as we know it, ends; all we do here on earth is respond to danger and protecting ourselves from perceived real or imaginary danger. If we do not have danger that we are afraid of what would we be doing on earth?

To live as a human being means that one must be fearful; therefore, one should leave people to be fearful and not ask them to be fearless for that would mean their exiting from this world.

Both black and white folks are fearful folks; it is fear that keeps human civilization going. The few persons who are less fearful, they are not entirely fearless, for if they are totally fearless they would not be in this world, are the ones who rule the totally fearful.

Unfortunately, less fearful persons tend to be anti-social personalities, sociopaths and psychopaths; they rule this world.  Soldiers, politicians and criminals are less fearful but fearful nevertheless; they are the rulers of the entirely fearful persons in this world.

Every once in a while, a fearless person comes to this world and talks about what he calls God; folks like Krishna, Gautama Buddha and Jesus Christ were such persons. These are the folks that establish the world's religions. (Scientists tend to be as fearful as normal folk.)

Fear protects the human body and what it houses, the ego sense of separated self; if one let go of fear the ego sense of separation and its body would disappear into unified spirit self, from whence they came.

Totally fearless people are in formless unified spirit; fear maintains separated selves in bodily forms.

Here is a philosophical question for one to ponder: since our lives are maintained by fear and physical and ego defenses can such lives be positive?

It seems that life in ego (that is separation from other persons and from the whole called God) and body is inherently negative for it is maintained by fear, a negative emotion.

The good, love, can only exist in formless state, aka heaven.

Post Script:

Please reread what I wrote above. This is the type of thinking that preoccupies philosophers. You seldom find such thinking in Africans. Africans seem to live extraverted, here and now lives, lives preoccupied with desire for food and material things and for fictional ego importance; they seem to live lives bereaved of introspection and reflection. I hope that a future generation of Africans would become thinkers, not the present seeming mindless persons one runs into when one is with Africans. Finally, in other papers I explored the biochemistry of fear; that subject is not my focus here.

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

February 12, 2018


Page 1 of 142