“White No More” / Part VII

Finally, ending this series of contemplations, my conclusions are as follows. Contemplating the concepts of “white no more” and “black no more” technology affirms my existentialist concept of human nature in which racism is a subset of the necessary classism required of reality. Technology, as it does with almost everything else, will make the battle against old school racism more efficient and will end it — it has already eliminated institutional old school racism. Though it will be replaced with other ways for individuals to dislike each other based on sense experience differences, the millennia old concepts of genetically superior and inferior ‘races’ are eliminated as a means for achieving power over others. However, for the foreseeable future, technology will not eliminate new school racism in which powerful white people and their black friends will continue to use skin color as a means to achieve power over others and as a smokescreen for their will to power. The will to power is a universal human trait. It is necessary in order for humanity to survive reality’s will for power over humanity and the mortality of its individuals. The ruling classes at any given time will use any available fact or tool to achieve power as an end in itself — including the struggles of ancestors with whom they cannot and do not empathize but see purely instrumentally as a means for power.

 
Eventually, this new school racism, once the present blacks who are using it to achieve power are firmly established, will become just another delusion and waste of human resources serving only to keep “black” hoi polloi in their place in the same way as the present posturing over the status of so-called Native Americans or American Indians pretending to be Navajo, Cherokee, or whatever delusion keeps hoi polloi involved on their reservations as a fiefdom of power for their few Inner and Outer Party powers. The only difference will be that future hoi polloi of the black tribe, race, family, or whatever Ta-Shei Coates, Susan Rice, or the Obamas want to call them will not be living on reservations created by the majesty of the law as is the case with American Indians but in self-imposed mental and physical reservations created by the polemics of new school racism — polemics preached by house servants such as Ta-Shei Coates to keep the field servants, white and black, fighting between themselves and in the fields working while he sits comfortably on the porch with his rich white friends criticizing the battle and struggles of those field hands.

 
Much of these polemics naturally flows from the structure of reality, but some of it is knowing and intentional. Hoi polloi out of a sense of empathy that naturally flows from their struggle with that reality should not ignore the personal evil involved. Comparing the illogic of the Dolezale facts discussed here with her detractors’ illogic on sexual identity and modern ethnic identity will bring out the personal evil motivating the polemics and the fact that the will to power trumps rationality and always will do so. The same people who ridicule Dolezale for ignoring her physical skin color are the same people who insist society must — not may or has the option of doing so at their free choice — but must ignore sense experience of sexual reproductive organs to define male and female sexes or sexual identity. This contradiction exists because logic is not the basis for humanity’s “ought” normative, ethical, or moral conclusions, it is the will to power that is the basis for all such conclusions.

 
Ethnicity in pre-modern times was the same as “race”. All modern ethnicities from Albanian to Zulu are the creations of struggles usually in the form of war. If struggle created the modern black race as Coates and other new school racists claim, it did so in the same way it created all ancestral, tribal, national, ethnic, some religious identities such as the Jewish Nation, language differences, and similar cultural and social distinctions among humans in life. The history of the world is the history of war. We would not have Italian, German, Serbian, Jewish, or any ethnicities and nations, tribes, people, or whatever without the conflicts that either united or separated them into their respective differences. The whole racist argument for the existence of a superior German or Aryan nation was based on their millennia existence as the first line of defense for Europe against attacking Asian “hordes”. Just as “struggle” has supposedly created Coates’ “black bodies” and black “race” and the reality, unity, and language of his black “people” and “tribe”, it has created all bodies, peoples, and tribes regardless of whether we call the differences cultural, social, ancestry, population, or any acceptable version of ‘race’.

 
However, for the Western World, because technology has made it more profitable and powerful for ethnicities to seek power over each other in peace through the law’s monopoly on violence instead of in war, ethnicity has for most Western societies if not for all become something that is easily ignored, created, and transferred because there is no physical characteristic such as skin color by which it can be made into a tool for those seeking power over others. If Dolezale were born in Italy of Italian parents, spoke Italian, and lived as an Italian most of her childhood and adult life, could she call herself an Italian-American and even an American (especially once she gets her formal citizenship) by simply moving to Brooklyn, learning to speak American, and accepting and living American culture, ideology, and values? Sure, this is what many immigrants have done and are doing. If an Italian lives in Brooklyn, engages in only American cultural activity, believes in the sovereignty of the United States, is a patriot of the United States, becomes an American citizen, acts American, speaks American, and believes in American values, should they be terminated from employment for calling themselves Italian-American instead of Italian or even for calling themselves American? No. In fact, terminating them for such a reason would be a violation of state and federal anti-discrimination law forced upon society by the powers. This ability to convert ethnic identity is true of all modern Western ethnic, tribal, national, religious, ethnicities, and old school “races” created by different forms of old school racist struggle, unless you are a racist or right-wing fanatic who believes in the purity of ethnicities. In which case, the differences are permanent because racists want such truth in the same way all racists want their arbitrary, invalid, unsound generalizations to be true.

 
Unlike sexual identity and ethnicity, Coates and his worshipers do not care about what Dolezal may or may not “think” about her identity. In their knowing and intentional house servant polemics pontificated to keep the field servants in their place, the word ‘black’ refers not only to having black skin but to a cultural and social history of struggle reserved for them regardless of whether or not they have ever struggled. Coates wants it that way and his politically correct worshipers want it that way in the same way that racists and right wing fanatics want to maintain ethnic purity. This is why they avoid asking the question of how many black ancestors are required for a person to call themselves a ‘black’ body because such question will obviously and clearly put them into the position of the racist trying to decide whether 1/32, 1/16 or 1/8 Jewish blood is enough to make one Jewish. They try to ignore their use of the word ‘race’ and thus its meaning because they want to pretend they are not racists.

 
Why do they get away with such obvious inconsistency and outright hypocrisy? Is it because it is not really a defeatist view of life but an intentional racist attempt to create and to gain an advantage from new school racism.

New School Racism / Part IV

I was going to end this topic and wait for September to add additional contemplation as I said I would in my last submission but happened to see an article in the Boston Globe this morning directly related to this topic of the developing new school racism that instinctively is too funny for me to pass on without comment. It was entitled “A Sad Day for Late Night” by a Renee Graham complaining of the recent cancellation of Larry Wilmore’s “Nightly Show” on Comedy Central. For those that are unfamiliar with the show, Larry Wilmore is the comic (at least he calls himself a comic, whether he was ever actually funny is a separate issue) who took over the television spot left open by Stephen Colbert ending the “Colbert Report” by moving to CBS to start “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”.

 
For those not familiar with Stephen Colbert, it is important to tell you that the mainstream CBS Late Show with him is nothing like the Colbert Report and the latter was in a completely different genre. The Colbert Report was complete, total, high art satire — the satire was so subtle and done so well that many times the guests and people being satirized did not even know they were being satirized. During one year of his show, congressional leaders barred their members from appearing on the Colbert Report because they were constantly looking like idiots during his questioning of them as part of a satire called “Better Know a District”. I admittedly loved the show, watched the premier of his Late Show and his fall from grace, and have not seen the Late Show again and do not intend to see it again — another example in the battle against the powers of “how the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished”.

 
Ms. Graham’s thesis is that the Nightly Show was cancelled because of Larry Wilmore’s “unabashed blackness”. “Unabashed blackness”? What the hell does that mean? Since he was cancelled because of unabashed blackness, does that meet that the multimillionaire black comics from Redd Fox and Flip Wilson to Kevin Hart, Chris Rock, and many more succeeded because of abashed blackness?

 
I tried watching Larry Wilmore and the Nightly Show hoping that Colbert had told him to “take up our quarrel with the foe: to you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high.” Instead, what I got was a nice guy Larry Wilmore having politically correct guests stating the usual politically correct ideas in as non-offensive a way as possible. What was really sad is when he actually came anywhere near an actual new idea, comment, or satire, he would immediately regret it and apologize! For example, during one episode, while discussing black fatherhood Wilmore referenced a statistic that fewer black women were getting married and then made the following joke: “Is it because black women are too bossy?” This is not even a new joke. Richard Pryor, the early nightclub Chris Rock, and many other black comics had and to this day have entire routines on this comic ridicule of black women that almost always leads into a ridicule of “white women” as being too easy. Wilmore had immediately to apologize for this joke and then repeated his apology the next night saying, “we love you” — otherwise he probably would have been cancelled a long time ago. He was always making apologies, not for not being funny which is the only sin for which comics should apologize, but for actually trying to be funny. I have never seen a comic apologize for a joke except for Don Rickles who would use an apology as a setup for much worse ridicule. So, is being a comic wimp “unabashed blackness” and Chris Rock and the rest are really white comics?

 
For anyone unfamiliar with the Boston Globe, you need to know that it is Boston’s brahmin newspaper preferred by New England brahmin Yankees over its opposition the lowbred, uncouth, working class Boston Herald. (This situation of only two newspapers is new school. Growing up in Chicago, we had several working class newspapers and several opposition brahmin papers to choose from. Now, you must surf the internet to get any diversity of opinion on any news.)

 
I have not been able to find out much about Ms. Renee Graham except that she is a black woman and the Globe lists her as a freelance contributor and pop culture critic. Do not know to what pop culture they are referring but it certainly must not be comedy pop culture. I have looked up her articles available on the internet and they are the usual politically correct droning with not one containing any original or new idea on any topic. No doubt, given that Ms. Graham works for the Boston Globe, she has succeeded in life — like Mr. Coates — by telling rich white people what they what to hear and being their black friend.

 
What is sad or funny about Ms. Graham’s topic is that while making the false accusation that Mr. Wilmore was cancelled because he was black, neither she nor any “pop culture” critic is doing anything about the virtual lynching of a black comic Bill Crosby based on mainly white women’s complains that he raped them, some accusations going back to supposed events of 40 years ago. Bill Crosby is the working class kid from Philadelphia who worked his way up not only to being a pioneer for black comics as role models instead of renegades but also with the television show I Spy became the first black actor to have a starring role in a weekly dramatic television series. He deserves better than the ridicule and treatment he is receiving for what may turn out to be false allegations and at worse may be unfortunately what was accepted procedure in Hollywood and television at the time by those in power and by women who wanted power. I doubt Crosby would be treated as he is by “pop culture” if he was an upper class rich male in the Kennedy family. Ted Kennedy drowned one of his late night lady friends (Ms. Mary Jo Kopechne) at Chappaquiddick, got away with it through his family and political connections, and then lived his life and ended it as a politically correct friend of liberated black and white women despite his and his family’s history of treating them and all their female acquaintances and especially the female members of their families like shit in their personal relationships with them.

 
The reasonable conclusion is that what Ms. Graham means by “unabashed blackness” is that Mr. Wilmore acted like politically correct Yankee brahmins attending an afternoon tea in which nothing is said that may make anyone think or feel uncomfortable so that all can go home satisfied with themselves and sleep well at night knowing they are perfect. In short, “unabashed blackness” is the same as “abashed whiteness”. Without doubt, Ms. Graham is a new school racist but deludes herself and her readers into believing they are not — this is the new harm and danger of new school racism.

New School Racism / Part III

That new school racism is an affirmative, social technique to maintain our present class power structure is exemplified by Colin Powell’s book It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership and his “13 life rules for any future leader”. As I mentioned earlier and as anyone who actually studies Mr. Powell’s life would conclude, Colin Powell was always a politician who put his personal career first — even while in the military as is true of most modern career military commissioned officers. When this country needed leadership from him the most, he abandoned us to go on to his multimillion dollar salary corporate officer and consulting jobs. Basically, his life’s guiding principles were to follow orders, do not make waves or disrupt the powers, and use the fact that he was black both as a means to succeed and as a defense and accusation against anyone that attacks his life’s guiding principles. Through these simple three rules, he has achieved upper class Outer Party and Inner Party status in life with the right to look down on hoi polloi and enforce his ethics and morality upon society — the power that defines the powers-that-be. Since he is not an honest leader willing to admit to these simple rules, he gives the following fabricated thirteen rules supposedly derived from his military experience and leadership to hide the reality of his forest behind a bunch of trees:
Rule 1: It Ain’t as Bad as You Think! It Will Look Better in the Morning!
Rule 2: Get Mad Then Get Over It!
Rule 3: Avoid Having Your Ego so Close to your Position that When Your Position Falls, Your Ego Goes With It!
Rule 4: It Can be Done!
Rule 5: Be Careful What You Choose! You May Get It!
Rule 6: Don’t Let Adverse Facts Stand in the Way of a Good Decision.
Rule 7: You Can’t Make Someone Else’s Decisions! You Shouldn’t Let Someone Else Make Yours!
Rule 8: Check Small Things!
Rule 9: Share Credit!
Rule 10: Remain calm! Be kind!
Rule 11: Have a Vision! Be Demanding!
Rule 12: Don’t take counsel of your fears or naysayers!
Rule 13: Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier!

Nice platitudes that can be applied to almost anything in life. The fact that he violated Rules 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 when it was most necessary to follow them does not seem to matter.

 
What anyone with military experience or even anyone who has read military history would immediately notice about these 13 rules is that they have nothing to do with leadership. As every successful military leader from Alexander the Great to George Patton and from the lowest ensign/2nd lieutenant to the highest field commander instinctively knew or learned the hard way is that there are only three rules for leadership: 1) do not ask your followers to risk anything you have not or would not risk; 2) do not respect your life any more than the lives of your followers; 3) competence. With these simple three rules, one from the lowest rank in society will be not only a leader but could become an emperor given the right circumstances and times.

 
The three historically derived leadership rules of the previous paragraph would negate all corporate management and political “leadership” since the start of the Vietnam War. It is not leadership to run a corporation on the backs of others while you know that win or lose you will walk away with millions. It is not leadership to risk wars so that others can do your killing for you though you would be too much of a coward to do it yourself. It is not leadership to use laws and lawyers to amass an inherited fortune or an “investment” fortune that gives 1% of the population 80% of the wealth generated by that population.

 
On the other hand, Powell’s thirteen leadership rules enforce all corporate management and political “leadership” since the end of the Vietnam War — even if the rules were followed though violating them when necessary for achieving personal power seems to be implicit in the rules as Powell’s life admits. Powell has given all present corporate and political powers a normative and intellectual foundation to justify the status quo power structure and thus his book is a best seller. By attacking him for this hypocrisy, he would say and his fellow leaders of the black community would say that I am a racist in the same way they claim that any ridicule of Obama is racist.

 
Such is the substantive difference of the new racism. For further example:

— Susan Rice, despite being the product of Washington DC elite society and private schools, must be a diverse “idea” person added to the national security staff because she is black.

— Oprah Winfrey is not a conn artist but an ethical authority figure and role model because she is black.

— Obama deserves a Nobel Peace Prize and cannot be considered a “meet the new boss same as the old boss” politician because he is black.

— Colin Powell is not just another corporate CEO concerned only with his career because he is black.

— Attorney Generals Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder are not just a bunch of political hack bagmen for the politicians that appointed them but civil rights defenders and leaders because they are black.

This is all bullshit. These new “leaders” who happen to be black want the same as previous “leaders” who were white: power, especially power over others. This new racism is worse than any old school racism because it hides as ethics, morality, and good; it destroys lives physically and unnecessarily but hides behind a necessity of ethics, morality, and good.

 
Much worse, it destroys the human soul because it makes words such as morality and good meaningless even on the individual level that may be the only place these words have any meaning. At least in old school racism, even the racist knew and admitted to being a racist — in fact, they were explicitly proud of it. With new school racism, no one admits to it; instead, they claim the higher ground of ethics and morality and goodness for hiding what they are, and thus are deluding themselves as to their own nature.

 
Well, f–ck them. If they are going to use new school racism to succeed, I will become a new school racist in opposition given that this is the only option I have as an outcaste. Just as John F. Kennedy in order to become president had to go around proving to the powers that he was not really a devote Roman Catholic but one of them, from now on I will expect anyone running for political office or corporate “leadership” to prove to me that they are not really black in order to get my support or willingness to follow their “leadership”. Am I a racist for requiring such proof? Yes I am, but at least I have the integrity to be honest about it unlike the creators of this new school racism that delude society and themselves and hide their true nature behind rules of “ethics” that really as with law are just excuses for their achieving power over others.

 
In light of becoming a new school racist, I am unilaterally declaring September 2016 to be White History Month and hopefully soon will be publishing about great white moments and great white persons in history who have improved life for the world’s poor and working classes — white, black, male, female, or whatever — and did so without hiding behind racist fake rules. “Integrity has no need of rules”, Albert Camus.

New School Racism / Part II

Regardless of the power of developing new school racism and its gaining of strength as social ethics, I do not want to become an old school racist because such would defeat the purpose of my hopeless battle against the necessary, omnipresent power of classicism. As discussed in a previous blog, racism based on skin color is a relatively new phenomenon in human history. Even as late as the 20th Century, racism based on arbitrary culture and social distinctions such as Aryan and Non-Aryan caused manyfold more suffering in the world than arbitrary skin color racism. However, the social creation of skin color racism has the same foundation as all arbitrary racism: it derives from the powers’ need to make sure that the lower classes are too busy struggling among themselves to challenge the powers. The social construct of racism was best described by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the poor sharecropper’s son who worked, conned, and connived his way up through college, a teaching career, politics, and then the presidency to create the Great Society programs of the 60’s for which all poor, white or black, should be grateful — though it is important he not be given credit for his work as he was white Southern trash, rather the credit should go to the upper class elitist Ivy League Kennedys from Massachusetts and their Camelot royalty delusion. President Johnson said as follows:

I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

Once again, the clear insight of an intelligent poor man exceeds in substance and quality all the scholarship of academics — the little there is on American classism.

 

So, what about new school racism practiced by our present upper class elites such as Colin Powell, President Obama and his groupies, Susan Rice, Oprah Winfrey, Ta-Nehisi Coates and so forth? Does it have the same foundation and purpose? Sure it does. If you critically or even common sensically based on reality and life experience analyze any example of it, you will see the result is the same:
— Mr. Coates, according to him the product of free private and public education from pre-K to five years of college, receives a genius award for ridiculing education as “only an opportunity to discipline the body”, that involves “writing between the lines”, “copying the directions legibly”, and “memorizing theorems”; he writes “[t]hey were concerned with compliance” and “Algebra, Biology, English” are just excuses for “discipline.” This ridicule he directs to young black men who he must know stand a 60% chance of landing in jail if they drop out of high school. If school is nothing but discipline, Coates should try working for a living for once in his life and then perhaps he would be better prepared to instruct others on their need for the discipline given by education instead of the alternative discipline provided by the prison system.
— “Black Lives Matter” expects, fosters, and incites protests when a police officer accidentally kills a black man, even if the officer was black, the suspect was a criminal, and even if the protests result in the burning and destruction of businesses serving poor neighborhoods. However, this group and the so-called leaders of the black community that support it expect, foster, and incite nothing over the undisputed fact that young black males are engaged in essentially self genocide in this country killing each other by the thousands each year and abandoning their families to be brought up in single parent households. (This contradiction exists even though Black Lives Matter has the time to take a political position against Israel, WTF?).
— The so-called leaders of the black community constantly cry for “civil rights” protection, yet the Obama administration, its attorney generals, and foreign policy advisors such as Susan Rice have done more than even the Cold War did to make meaningless supposed constitutionally protected civil liberties. More than any previous administration, they fought a war on whistle blowers of government dishonesty and outright corruption making it even harder to learn of either — as if it was not hard enough before. Even Obama’s simple pledge to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with its claim of right to indefinite detention without trial that he could have accomplished by executive order as commander in chief failed because he is too much of a political coward to do it. At the same time, Obama claims the right as President to kill United States citizens by drones simply by executive order — no prior President not even the Bush administration ever claimed this right. Obama has gone further than Bush with his claim of right to expanding the domestic national security state. The recent case of Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier is a personal issue with me. This sailor is looking at possibly four years in jail for being caught with photos of his boat’s engineroom considered by the Obama Justice Department to be “classified” material though all the details in these photos can be found in Jane’s Fighting Ships — the same Justice Department that has declined to prosecute our apparent future president Hillary Clinton for having hundreds if not thousands of “top secret” material in her personal files. The handful of photos that I have of my shipmates from my engineroom and other watchstations are about the only good memories I have of my military service. What a bunch of assholes.

 

Any poor white trash with even half-a-brain would look at this ridicule of education; simultaneous demand for police protection while also physically bashing police officers and inciting the destruction of poor neighborhoods and families (even white trash respect their own families and neighborhoods); and the hypocritical stance on their “rights” and would then through innocent ignorance conclude that “at the bottom of it, even the lowest white man must be better than the best colored man”, ergo we have a racist.

 
So this new school racism propagated by the new powers of our Technological Society is based on and serves the same social need of the old school racism, but does it do more? As I will discuss next, yes it does. At least in old school racism, even the racist knew and admitted to being a racist — in fact, they boasted about it. Whereas old school racism only created disunity among the lower classes, new school racism serves to create a normative basis or social construct justifying our present status quo social classes — it affirmatively supports and enforces classism not just maintains it. It does so implicitly through what it calls “ethics”, instead of explicitly through Jim Crow and other laws. In an essential way, this is much more dangerous because it is not as obvious since there is no written or published laws or other explicit enforcement of this new racism out there to attack. Being forced to ride in the back of the bus because of codified law based on your skin color is obvious racism and an obvious fight with obvious opponents. Being forced to live as a wage slave or as an unemployable uneducated social dependent because professional, political, and social “ethics” requires one live as such is not an obvious fight with obvious opponents, moreover it makes anyone who starts such a fight seem unethical, evil, or ugly while the opponents seem and claim to be the “good”.

Classism and Democracy

The powers-that-be and their groupies are once again engaged in their election year melodrama as to whether Beavis or Butthead will be their figurehead leader this year while the majority of Americans try to ignore this additional disruption of their daily battle to survive in life hoping that the melodrama ends quickly. As always, after the election it will be “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The only unusual aspect of the theatrics and melodrama this year is that one of the potential figureheads is a Ms. Beavis, or is it Ms. Butthead? Whatever. Supposedly, this is a great victory for women in their battle against sexism. I suspect however that any such affirmative value of this election for women in regard to sexism will be negated and perhaps sexism worsens by the negative effect of maintaining that Hillary Clinton is a worthy, positive role model, and fine example of American womanhood — not that Trump gives men any bragging rights. From the working class perspective, the important aspect of this or any election is that the change of figurehead occurs peacefully without bloodshed and military violence. Democracy, especially democracy lacking any religious tradition of self-discipline and homogeneity as ours now lacks, is doomed to eventual disorder, chaos, and collapse; but we must not allow this collapse to re-ignite social and cultural tyranny dependent on military violence as the only option for government. As a result of modern technology, there are plenty of viable alternatives to democracy that we must consider and evolve into in order to avoid Orwellian 1984 style tyranny also made possible by technology.

 
America can now claim to be the oldest continuing modern democracy or republic — depending on how you define those terms. However, it is not the first of either; democracies and republics have come and gone before and were a well-known form of governance even in the ancient world among tribes and then on to city states. So much so that the philosopher Plato became history’s first known sociologist by studying their rise and fall then developing descriptions allowing for predictions that can be tested by time. In parts of his famous Socratic dialogues, he develops an explanation or theory as to why governments, including democracy, always fail and eventually become tyranny. Surprisedly to many modern readers, the theory is based on economic class conflict (for this reason, in his ideal “Republic”, the so-called guardians of the peace are to be communists having no private property only communal ownership of it). According to Plato, the ideal state is a kingship by the wisest. This degenerates into a timocracy or plutocracy in which jealous noblemen struggle for the King’s wealth and power. This degenerates into an oligarchy that in turn degenerates into democracy because the oligarches not only become too busy fighting among themselves for wealth and power to govern but hire the working class to fight their battles for them thus educating and empowering them. The class struggle continues and is exasperated in democracy as the workers now also battle for power eventually leading to anarchy. Unlike Karl Marx, an optimist for the working class, who saw a dictatorship of the proletariat developing from this anarchy, the upper class patrician Plato saw the next step as simply a military dictatorship — a tyrant.

 
We now know from history that regardless of whether it is a dictatorship of the proletariat or of an admitted military tyrant, the end result is the same. A military tyranny governing solely by bloodshed and pure power is an evil to be avoided regardless of class, sex, religion, or whatever. However, given the consequences for failing to avoid it, actually avoiding such a government is not as easy as it should be. One way of failing to avoid it is by blind allegiance to one’s present form of governance regardless of its corruption instead of preparing for the worse by opening up one’s mind to new ideas of social governance.

 
Neither democracy nor a republic form of governance is the holy grail of social governance. This is especially true for the working class. In the ancient world, it was not the Athenian democracy but the oligarchy of Sparta (and then the Roman Empire) that came the closest to making men and women equal under the law, in education, and in economic rights because they needed to do so: the Spartan men were too busy complying with their 40 years of required military service. Christianity and its “slave morality” were born and prospered not under the Roman Republic but in and through the Roman Empire eventually giving birth to the Holy Roman Empire. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were born in limited monarchies and city state oligarchies and plutocracies. While the British limited monarchy of the 19th Century outlawed slavery and was creating and maintaining its West Africa Naval Fleet to eliminate the slave trade, the democracy/republic of the United States continued with chattel slavery to the point of civil war and the post-French Revolution French Republic, Consulship, or whatever you want to call that mess lost many of its initial and most loyal patriots for freedom in a fight to maintain slavery in Haiti. On the other hand, Adolf Hitler was legally elected into office as a socialist opponent of the evils of capitalism. The working class should be loyal and be willing to defend democratic and republic forms of government when the government works successfully to give the working class the material needs and social order necessary for materially better lives; when it fails to do so, it is time for the working class to look for alternatives — even if they are not democratic or republican.

 
We are quickly reaching that point. The United States is a republic or democracy in name only. Regardless of liberal or conservative president, the rich are getting rich, the working class is working more for less money, billions are spent on wasted wars and debt payments to help tyrannies such as Islam and China become new empires in the world. Meanwhile, a handful of despots and demigods called judges with guaranteed taxpayer jobs are re-creating Western Civilization in their image ignorant of the substance and history of that civilization. Unless you are aware of the problem and mentally prepare for it, tyranny will be the next step and the working class, as always, will suffer the worse for it.

 
I suggest the following. Vote but do not vote for any mainstream candidate; write in anyone but them. If this occurs in large enough numbers, the powers will realize that we see through their game and they will have to allow substantive change or risk revolution — remember, the last thing the powers want is chaos or disorder and the threat of such is the working class’ only power over them short of actual revolution. Do not join the military or the police. Do not make any loyalty oaths to the government; if you must, protest by some act of civil disobedience. As the powers become more isolated from everyday life, they need technology and workers to deal with and maintain their power in everyday life, this is developing as an additional weakness for them. Therefore, invest in and understand technology as much as possible, and invest in and understand history and other forms of government so that you can imagine and accept new potential forms of government made possible by modern technology (such as polystate, futarchy, delegative or liquid democracy, demarchy, or by duplicating corporate governance by shareholders and boards of directors into actual civil governance since they are running things anyway so might as well be honest about it). By accepting and preparing for our democracy/republic reaching its inevitable decay into chaos and disorder, hopefully, when the transition into whatever the next government type will be occurs, the working class will have some say in it and some control over it. Otherwise, the new form of government will be a military tyranny because history has proven that only a military tyranny can create order from total chaos. As our present military culture transitions into becoming a professional military instead of one made up of citizen soldiers, it will gladly take up the opportunity provided by chaos to become the new powers.

New School Racism / Part I

Admittedly I grew up in a racist neighborhood. The working class to survive has always relied on love of their own and on hate of all who appear to threaten their own and the little they have. Love gets the good press, but in the real struggle of everyday life on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, hate is a more useful tool for climbing up that ladder. Racism was just one of many hates. Its advantage was that it joined all ethnicities and sexes of one skin color into a battle with those of another skin color so that for a moment they could forget the ethnic and sex battles going on among those of the same skin color. In the end, the winner was always the same and consisted of those watching the battles from on-high on the top rungs of the ladder but never involved in any of the battles — by on-high I mean both socially and spiritually since God never seemed to care either. It was much like the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian in which the Roman soldiers stand by watching the various factions of the Judean Liberation Parties or whatever they called themselves fighting among themselves to the point of physical collapse and then the soldiers easily march in and carry everyone away to prison. I avoided becoming a racist because personally and through reading of history I understood that the opponents were as battered and in as bad a shape as I was if not worse.

 
However, after decades of avoiding racism, honestly I have to admit it is becoming a viable option because its nature has changed, it is no longer a battle between those at the bottom while the powers watch but it is becoming a technique for becoming and staying a power at the top. Rich white folks that happen to be black still think like rich white folks. There is no “diversity” in claiming otherwise but simply a new school of racism.

 
In addition to Mr. Coates, the archetypal sycophant of rich white people, I am running into more and more complaints by so-called “leaders” of the Black community such as Colin Powell, Oprah Winfrey, and Susan Rice complaining that ridicule and insulting treatment of President Obama are motivated by racism and that more blacks are needed in government for “diversity”. This is equivalent to the Bush family complaining that any ridicule of them results from their ancestor arriving in America as an indentured servant and that more rich and powerful ancestors of indentured servants are needed in government for “diversity” of opinion. This is the new racism. These “leaders” have successfully used whatever abilities they have plus their “African American” status to become among the rich and powerful in the United States. Like Mr. Coates, being a “black body” is the best thing that ever happened to them. Though they may have read about racist acts of injustice, I doubt if any of them have ever personally experienced any truly racist act of injustice.

 
First, these “leaders” and many more seem to have not read any history and have forgotten the recent history of how President Obama came into the presidency with the largest democratic popular vote since FDR plus a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since the mid-1990’s. He promised to change the system, get us out of war, and received the Nobel Peace Prize simply for being black. Eight years later his primary accomplishment has been to sell the American health system to insurance companies while: leaving millions still uninsured; expanding government warrantless search and seizure power to levels never thought possible; issuing a record number of prosecutions for whistle-blowing thus further expanding government power; establishing regular Thursday meetings to decide what U.S. Citizen he is going to kill by drones this week; leaving Wall Street and its bankers richer than ever while the rest of America is underemployed with lower real wages equivalent to 1970’s income; letting China, Russia, and Islam become world empires again; and allowing despots in judicial robes redefine Western Civilization. For all this, unlike past presidents from John Adams to Bill Clinton (I would include the second George Bush but he deserved the ridicule he got) who did much better with their terms of office, there have been: no assassination attempts or threats (remember four presidents were assassinated in office plus there were two attempts); no insulting nicknames by the news media for him such as “Useless S. Grant”, “Tricky Dick”, “His Rotundity”, “Martin Van Ruin”, “His Accidency”; and no daily television comedy skits showing him to be a stumbling buffoon or indecisive Southern redneck peanut farmer as done with Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Further, unlike Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson, President Obama is still able to walk out in public without ridicule in his second term and has the respect of his party — why is beyond me since he broke all the hopes that led to his winning election except for gay marriage that is of dubious value. As far as I can see based on my reading of presidential history, he is getting off easy for his betraying of the promises and voters that got him in office.

 
I go on to some of the referenced complaining “leaders”.

 
My book Between the World and Us establishes Mr. Coates as a spoiled, racist white kid who happens to be black who not only never had a “struggle” in life but was too lazy even to graduate from college despite having it handled to him for free. He now gets rich being a black friend to rich white folks while giving advice to poor black kids guaranteed to keep them poor.

 
Oprah Winfrey is the embodiment of the stereotypical snake oil salesman and the founder of modern day trash television. The idea that she adds “diversity” to her spawn consisting of  the day-time television likes of The Jerry Springer Show, The Jenny Jones Show, The Maury Povich Show, The Montel Williams Show, and Ricki Lake simply because she is black is the new racism. The fact that she gets away with what she does plus gets rich and powerful at it shows the darkest side of human nature and creates nothing but despair that the working class will ever be anything other than pawns in life. No one should care what she says about anything. The fact that she is a regular guest at the White House should be basis enough for justified ridicule of President Obama. Again, being black is the best thing that ever happened to her and by her cries of racism establishes herself as a new school racist.

 
Susan Rice has the audacity to complain that there are two many “white” people in national security posts thus endangering national security because there is no “diversity of opinion”. Ms. Rice grew up in Washington, D.C. educated in private schools and is the Stanford-educated daughter of a governor of the Federal Reserve System and a Brookings Institute researcher. Adding her or anyone like her to government adds no diversity. To say it does simply because she is black is the new racism and she is a new school racist.

 
No doubt, given his age, Mr. Powell remembers what real racism is. Whatever he remembers, such does not change the reality of what he is and that he has no basis for pretending that he is anything but a powerful, ambitious, individual whose life goals are power and personal advancement. He was a professional career military officer. If you want real diversity of opinion added to national security policy, add mine based on six years of military experience all across the globe as an enlisted man: as professional career military, Powell was and is willing to sacrifice anyone and anything not for love of country but for the benefit of his career as is true of any professional military officer in any professional military of any country. As an officer in the Korean War he carried out his assigned responsibility to put down black soldiers’ protests and then in Vietnam he was assigned to investigate the My Lai Massacre that he whitewashed as he was expected to do to advance his career. He is not a combat leader of men and never led men in combat, instead he has been a political officer and sycophant his whole life to the powers-that-be — as is true of most career military commissioned officers. When this country in 2001-02 needed his “leadership” the most, Secretary of State Powell and all the joint chiefs of staff instead of standing up to idiot President George Bush and insane Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney with the ridiculous idea of starting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not only did Powell do nothing to stop it but instead helped make the case for it. When the war plans failed, Powell simply resigned from government to take up a multimillion dollar paid position in private industry. He is a successful power-that-be. He used all his resources to advance his career and his fortunes and the fortunes of his family members, including the fact that he was “African American”; without that last fact, he would have been just another white officer responsible for whitewashing the My Lai investigation that once discovered would have and should have ended his military career. The fact is that being black or African-American or whatever he wants to call himself is the best thing that ever happened to him. He might have witnessed or read about racism and racist injustice but he has no personal experience of suffering it.

 
The same is true of now President Obama. Being black is the best thing that ever happened to President Obama. Otherwise, he would be just another burnout from Hawaii working in some government job waiting for his pension to kick in. He has no business claiming to represent the poor and impoverished, white or black. His wife, a classmate of mine, Michelle Obama worked as a corporate attorney for a large Chicago law firm handling discrimination cases; thus, when one of their corporate or rich clients was sued for discrimination by a woman or black person, they could bring her in to defend and establish their political correctness. Ms. Obama’s father and mother probably knew real racist discrimination, but she and her present family have known and will know nothing but benefits from racism.

 
These “leaders” provide no diversity of opinion because irrespective of color, sex, sexual orientation, or whatever, these individuals all think and act the same because they are the same, they are not “diverse” simply because they are black. Is that not want racism is, claiming that someone thinks differently because of their skin color? The Obamas, Ophray Winfrey, Colin Powell, and most of the “leaders” of the “African American” community that I have heard complaining about mistreatment of Obama or needed diversity in his administration are individuals who have made it to the top of the ladder and are looking down. They are rich white folk that happen to be black. As with Mr. Coates, they are no threat to any racists out there, are no threat to Wall Street, and are no threat to any status quo or power elite. They are the power elite.

 
Good for them, but using race to stay in power makes them racist and is the new school of racism. For a more detailed analysis of this issue, I suggest the book The Trouble with Diversity by Walter Benn Michaels and White Trash, The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg.

 
The personal problem I have with all this is the more these power elite new school racists complain about racism and a need for diversity, the more I am tempted to become an old school racist. The question is, what do I do about it? Become an old school racist after a lifetime of avoiding such?

Classism and the Law / Part I

Slavery was legal. Colonialism and imperialism of all types were legal. The Holocaust and every major genocide from the Athenian Empire and the Roman Republic up to the Holocaust were legal. Jim Crow was legal. Apartheid was legal. Upper class men protecting their Victorian estates for their eldest sons by restricting the property rights of their upper class women was legal (lower class women as with lower class men throughout history and at present work and die with essentially no accumulation of property, so estate and property “rights” were and substantively still are meaningless for them). Without exception, from Socrates to Jesus Christ to labor union busting to millions imprisoned in the United States for non-violent drug crimes, the law has and always will be on the wrong side of history on any issue of substance. Legality is a matter of power.

 

Both “conservative” and “liberal” powers-that-be are fully aware of the above facts; both complain about too many laws and the tyranny of rule by judges; yet, without exception both conservative and liberal powers in our modern technological society use the law to enforce whatever their classism agenda may be and both market “law and order” as our savior, as the new secular religious cult that must be worshiped and honored by all — or else! “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it” — Howard Zinn. Oh yeah? It was easy for him to say this while staying at his Martha’s Vineyard vacation home spending his Summers sailing his yacht while he earned (and now his estate earns) money from his Marxist interpretation (distortion) of history books and writings loved by the liberal intelligentsia knowing full well that his earnings and wealth are protected by American intellectual property and estate law. Of course, these same liberal protestors of the tyranny of the law have no problem with five failed lawyers and glorified bookkeepers snatched purely for political reasons from their life of bureaucracy to become judges re-defining marriage for an entire country simply because they wear judicial robes. Laissez Faire and libertarian economics is also easy to hypocritically preach by conservatives until, according to Joseph Stiglitz the Nobel Prize winning capitalist economist, they have a reason not to practice what they preach:

bankers, among the strongest advocates of laissez-faire economics, were only too willing to accept hundreds of billions of dollars from the government in the bailouts that have been a recurring feature of the global economy since the beginning of the Thatcher-Reagan era of ‘free’ markets and deregulation. … Congress maintains subsidies for rich farmers as we cut back on nutritional support for the needy. Drug companies have been given hundreds of billions of dollars as we limit Medicaid benefits. The banks that brought on the global financial crisis got billions while a pittance went to the homeowners and victims of the same banks’ predatory lending practices. … Economic inequality translates into political inequality, and political inequality yields increasing economic inequality.

 

F__k these hypocritical a__holes. As the law becomes the Telescreen and Outer Party of our modern technological society, if working men and women have any hope of becoming or of wanting to become anything other than brain numb 1984 O’Brien’s living a life of happy servitude to our wage masters, this respect for the law has not only got to be rejected but it must be done so in a knowing, knowledgeable, and intelligent matter so that the working person does not wind up in jail or dead as intended by the law for honest expressions against it. Resisting arrest by a bunch of armed police officers is asking for trouble including being shot and not a smart way to rebel against the law — then whining about it through racist slogans such as only “black lives matter” even though the majority of people killed by police are white only fosters racism and thus classism.

 

I am dealing in generalities for now and hope to get into detailed options for rebellion and rejection of the law in later writings because it is important to get into the right mindset and to understand the serious battle at issue by keeping these generalities in mind as we make decisions on if and when we are to rebel or reject the law. “The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown” — Albert Camus. Rebellion and rejection of the law as a secular religion must occur while at the same time avoiding this wanting among the working class. The law is necessary to a certain extent to maintain social order. “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important” — Martin Luther King Jr. However social order must not be an overriding end in itself neither should be punishment of the guilty nor liability for the responsible. “It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished” — John Adams. A large amount of chaos and social disorder is necessary to allow working class persons to prosper and to use their work ethic and creativity to advance themselves and society materially and economically. If the law had its way, society would consist of a peaceful Walmart utopia of inherited power and wealth and their servants exchanging Walmart greeter jobs as necessary to keep the servants off-guard and either too busy or too beaten to rebel. Classism is a necessary part of nature, and the law is the means by which this necessity is maintained and enforced. Chaos is both a foundation for the law’s work and the only means to fight its power. Unfortunately, as so much in life, the battle is filled with contradiction.

 

If you decide to fight classism in an individual or united battle that you are destined to lose as discussed in earlier blogs here, the first step is to reject the law as your religion, cult, aid, and comforter. This first step will involve further contradiction. Your motto must be extreme while knowing full well that you cannot live it, it is the mental attitude that is important:

Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool

Or a coward

Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both

For a wounded man will shall say to his assailant

“If I live, I will kill you. If I die, you are forgiven”

Such is the rule of honor.

                                      Omerta, the band Lamb of God.

 

The powers will respond that this type of mental attitude threatens our peace, freedom, and prosperity and will turn us into a Mideast quagmire of personal religious vendetta. Nonsense. North Korea is a law and order abiding and orderly atheistic society; such does not make it prosperous or free and its peace is that of a prison cell. As books such as Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson are finally starting to publicize and as any study of history will show, neither nations nor freedom prospers because of the rule of law. They prosper because free individuals want freedom and they have the material and economic resources to protect it and make it prosper through social and economic interactions and relationships including religion that allow for such freedom to prosper. The United States was founded by bootleggers, tax evaders, privateers, black marketeers, and other such criminals under British law; was lucky to develop as a nation an ocean away from European law; was founded through enlightened Christian theology; and developed quickly enough before European law could come over and impose its social classes on us. Otherwise we would be in the same position as Mexico, Central and South America, and the English class system called Canada. Fear the law but do not respect it nor fear rebelling against it.

 

Classism vs. Racism: Which is Worse? Part II

Concepts of both classism and racism have existed throughout known history. Both terms describe a discriminatory relationship between humans in which someone or some group of humans divides humanity into groups based on physical characteristics or upon qualities assumed essential or innate to the group and then concludes one of these groups to be politically, culturally, mentally, or physically superior to the other or others. As we go further back in history, the two terms become synonymous with each other and with ethnicity. For example, both in Plato’s Republic and in the writings of Aristotle, there is the philosophical, political, ethical, and moral conclusion: “The notably born are citizens in a truer sense of the word than the low born … Those who come from better ancestors are likely to be better men, for nobility is excellence of race” (Aristotle); “The race of the guardians must be kept pure” (Plato). The Open Society and Its Enemies, ch. 10, 11, Karl Popper. When referring to “notably born”, the reference was to the materially and economically and thus politically powerful; slaves and wage earners were excluded as were barbarians from other lands, the latter we now call ethnic discrimination. Until recent history, such ethnic discrimination was also synonymous with racism. Even now, the United Nations makes no distinction between ethnic and racial discrimination. However, this “excellence of race” was not based on human skin color. Until recent history, most racism in Western Civilization was between political, social, or cultural groups of the same skin color. A powerful example still exists in the modern ideology called Nazism that differentiates between Aryan races and non-Aryan races.

 
The limitation of the word “racism” to a discriminatory relationship between human groups of different skin color is a relatively modern concept made for the benefit of polemics on both sides. To the white supremacist, it has the obvious advantage of lumping all “black bodies” — as Mr. Coates refers to his “tribe” or group — into one human group and thus ignoring the complex and convoluted ethnic differences between “black bodies”. For racists such as Mr. Coates who supposedly are against racism, it has the advantage of grouping all “white bodies” into one human group sharing original sin for slavery and thus ignoring the complex and convoluted ethnic differences between “white bodies” and the complex and convoluted history of slavery.

 
The word “classism” is a modern creation also, created in an attempt to differentiate discrimination among human groups based on social class from racism. Classism became truly separated from race and ethnicity with the industrial revolution and the historical philosophical materialism of Marxism: “The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle”. Classical Marxism does not deny humanity’s spiritual side, in fact it argues that only in the spiritual side does freedom exist, but argues that the human spirit lives in a material world and its fate in this world is decided by the necessities of this material world. When the rules of that material world are capitalism, fate necessarily demands the existence of a ruling class controlling production and the resulting economic wealth and of lower classes that eventually become nothing more than working class wage slaves to a cycle of production and consumption necessary to maintain the ruling class wealth and power. For this view of the material world, class struggle is a struggle between classes defined by economic or material wealth.

 
With the benefit of history, we know that Marxism was wrong to limit its conclusion solely to capitalism. As I quote in Between the World and Us:

 

It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has  been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters. George Orwell, 1984.

 

With the development of Marxism and similar modern philosophies and social theories, classism became a separate concept. As pointed out in an earlier blog, the social activists, labor union leaders, and politicians of the industrial revolution renewed the concept of “wage slavery” from the ancients such as Aristotle and Cicero and compared it to chattel slavery. However, unlike the ancients, these moderns argued that wage slavery was just as evil or worse than chattel slavery.

 
Classism remains an ambiguous term because unlike race and ethnicity regardless of how they are defined, humans can, do, and want to change class especially when it is defined purely in an economic sense as it is usually defined. When one moves from a lower class to an upper class, one is no longer lower class. The purpose of affirmative action and civil rights laws for racial and ethnic discrimination is not to change a person’s race or ethnicity. However, if fate allows one to go from an economic lower class to an economic upper class, one is no longer lower class and thus one no longer has any incentive to either eliminate class or help out the lower classes in any meaningful way.

 
Class involves power, power by one group of humans over another group of humans. We live in a material world so a necessary foundation for this power will be material or economic power. However, it is not purely economic nor should it imply hereditary power. As George Orwell pointed out, hereditary aristocracies are weaker and eventually destroy themselves because ruling classes based on hereditary are slow in replacing weak members with those capable of maintaining class power. As developed in http://www.sandpebblespodcast.com on its discussion of ethics and theology, the ruling class of any society or social group can be defined as the group capable of forcing the entire society or social group to go from an “is” statement to an “ought” statement. So, for example, the handful of judges who decided that the entirety of American society must re-define marriage to include gay couples are ruling class regardless of their personal economic wealth and of one’s moral view of that decision. Though many of those judges are wealthy or are trust fund children and their power comes from being bagmen or sycophants to those with economic or material power, having individual wealth is not a prerequisite for being ruling class; the prerequisite is having the power to make other groups or the whole society change its “ought”, its ethics. The workers of the working or lower classes, either individually or in combination, have no power to make any “ought” changes to whatever society or culture enslaves them to their wages. For them, it is always “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Thus for classism to have real pragmatic meaning, social classes and thus “classism” cannot be defined solely in economic terms but in terms of this “ought” power.

 
We now begin to see how classism is different from other forms of power and oppression by one social group over another such as racism — especially in racism’s modern version dealing only with skin color. Race may eventually disappear in the same way as will disappear many other forms of human differentiation such as those based upon who wears or does not wear bow ties (when people stop wearing bow ties), ride motorcycles (when there no longer are motorcycles), are republican (when this party is gone), or one of the other almost infinite number of ways that humans use to differentiate and then discriminate against each other. (When it does, according to the book Black No More by George Schuyler, humans will find a way to recreate race but his prediction is beyond this blog.) There was a time when all humans differentiated each other by tribes. This differentiation of humans by tribe has disappeared from Western Civilization, except in satirical form or when used ignorantly such as by Mr. Coates, and the same disappearance may some day be true for differentiation by “race.” Classism can never and will never disappear.

 
Unless humans become completely amoral or engage in mass suicide, the need to look at the “is” of reality and to create an “ought” was, is, and will be a necessary part of human nature. When solitary, an individual can only try to force whatever “ought” they desire upon nature. As soon as more than one individual is involved in anything, “oughts” collide. No two individuals and most definitely no group or societies of individuals have ever, do, or will ever be able to agree for any significant amount of time on what they “ought” to be doing. Someone will eventually win these disagreements. If they are in a group, they will win over the other groups. In this material world, this power over others will necessarily have a material basis. This combination of power creates a ruling class. Power for the sake of power is not bothered by any of the restrictions that hinder those who seek power for other reasons. Thus, within the ruling class, those who seek power for the sake of power will be the ultimate ruling class as verified by all known history and will become, are, or have already become in reality the fictional Inner Party of Orwell’s 1984.

 
What if anything can be done about classism will be contemplated next.

Classism vs. Racism: Which is Worse? Part I

Originally, the Greek “ism” began life in the English language as a suffix means of forming action nouns from verbs or nouns and did not imply anything evil (i.e., baptize, baptism; real, realism; existence, existentialism; Darwin, Darwinism). Unfortunately, since “communism” and especially now with “terrorism”, using an “ism” to describe an individual’s acts or ideas has become an easy and instinctive way to ridicule the acts or ideas. Intellectualism, sexism, racism, heterosexualism, barbarism, despotism, plagiarism are modern obvious omnipresent examples as is classism though the latter is little acknowledged or used in the United States that falsely claims and wants to be classless. This easy and in the modern world instinctive method of argument uses the same supposed evils of which it accuses the proponent of the bad “ism”: generalization and stereotype. Is there a difference between generalization and stereotype? If there is, at what point if any does a generalization become a stereotype or the other way around? Is either one or both inherently logically unsound or evil? What about specifically racism and classism? Is either racism or classism inherently logically unsound or evil, a subset of the other, an arbitrary creation of the will, or a necessary part of the reality of social and cultural interaction among humans? Is either worse than the other? These are questions I will consider in the next series of blogs. For now, I am not restricting “racism” to its very recent polemic definition in modern history of solely white/black racism, the term racism historically covers much more than this fairly recent version.

 
Throughout known history, any human coming in contact with another human has differentiated him or herself from the other. There is no way around self-consciousness; I am, therefore I think. Even a solitary hunter/gatherer meeting another solitary hunter/gatherer in the middle of nowhere will have to make a decision as to what to do about this other. If the decision is made irrationally or reflexively, by that I mean without going through a conscious process of induction or deduction, it will be made upon instincts created by life experience — instincts resulting from prior successful or unsuccessful inductions or deductions. If the decision is a conscious one, it will be made by a process of induction or deduction based on prior successful or unsuccessful inductions or deductions. Either way, in the absence of a pure altruistic instinct (assuming such exists) or a purely malevolent instinct (assuming such exists) fully controlling the individuals, the process will unavoidably involve such generalization or stereotype about the other individual.

 
In human consciousness, there is no way around the use of generalization and it is not evil nor logically unsound. All statements of fact or truth require some generalization. Generalization is the foundation of science. All inductive reasoning infers from a finite set of observations and experiences to a generalization claiming to hold true for a larger set of observations and experiences, even for those in the larger set that have not been seen or experienced. These generalizations, if not proven false, are then the premises for deductive reasoning, including for scientific deductive reasoning. Generalizations offer a theory about how things are in general. Thus the statement “all ravens are black” is a useful generalization, though no one person has ever been able to validate it by inspecting every raven on earth or every raven that has ever existed, and no one knows what ravens will be like in the future. Without such inductive reasoning, we would not be able to survive the day, survive life, nor would we have the modern world of science and technology. For purposes of the present contemplation, I will not challenge the soundness of inductive reasoning (If you have a firm belief in the rationality of inductive reasoning as somehow being better than instinct or faith — an issue beyond this blog but considered in http://www.sandpebblespodcast.com, I suggest that you contemplate the raven paradox, also known as Hempel’s Paradox.)

 
The meaning of a word is its use. In common use, a “generalization” refers to a rational effort to categorize or describe facts, while a “stereotype” refers to an irrational effort to categorize or describe facts. Ideally, then, neither is a subset of the other but are distinct means of consciously categorizing or describing reality (unless you want to define the set as a collection of such means). Practically, however, how does one differentiate between a “rational” and an “irrational” effort? This is not as easy as it seems it should be. Both generalization and stereotypes involve inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion and then deduction to test or to live based on that conclusion. Often they are impossible to differentiate except based on a polemic reason: we want a statement to be one or the other.

 
When the differentiation is possible, it involves examination of the speaker’s intent in combination with an examination of the quantitative basis for the induced inferences. The deductions made from those inferences do not matter because in the real world, simply as a result of pure luck, true deductions may result from completely false inferences and bad intent. A stereotype should not become rational and thus a generalization as a result of pure luck.

 
Intent is one part of the criteria for differentiation and often is dispositive of the question. The function of the generalization “all ravens are black” is to understand and to allow people to understand and to work better with ravens not to harm or to oppress ravens. If the intent was purely to harm or oppress ravens for one’s benefit, we would have some doubt about it being a purely rational process and may call it a stereotype until we get an almost certain basis for the induction. (We can never get certainty because it is induction.) Is observation of one raven enough or do we need 100,000 observations when you are trying to harm all ravens based on the generalization that all ravens are black? For general statements made by a person with an obvious intent to categorize an entire class of people for oppression such as “all women are delusional” and “all black men are criminals”, the evil intent is so clear that unless they are supported by an observation of every individual woman and every individual black man — which is impossible — they would be called irrational and thus stereotypes regardless of the factual basis.

 
However, intent is not the sole basis for differentiation. What if the latter statements were made by an isolated person observing women in a large psychiatric ward and while observing black men in a prison? In these latter examples, there may be no evil intent but the statements would still be called stereotypes because the latter statements involve a set of observed facts that are too small for making inferences about the large quantity of members in the larger class or, based on simple experience, would clearly result in false inferences, thus they are stereotypes regardless of intent. The quantity covered by the generalization must be compared to the quantity of the observations upon which it is based. If the comparison leads to a ratio that experience indicates is too high, it is usually called a stereotype.

 
Sometimes, these two elements are ignored or hidden. Even simple scientific generalizations are not free of some subjective perhaps evil intention by the speaker that is often ignored for practical purposes. In science’s case, the intent many would say is to manipulate nature to human ends. In the absence of this intent for power, I doubt much if any scientific knowledge would have ever occurred, but again, this issue is beyond this blog. Regardless of this hidden malevolent intent that may be present in all scientific generalizations, they are still called generalizations and not stereotypes if the inferences are based on an acceptable quantity of facts and lead to deductions that can be tested and proven false in such test. (Again, since we are dealing with induction, no generalization can ever be proven true because it is impossible to test all of reality.) Similarly, if there is acceptable or politically correct intent, inferences based on insufficient or unsound observations are readily called generalizations. This happens all the time in economics and politics whose practitioners almost as a matter of routine assume A causes B simply because A correlates with B. (For an interesting analysis of such assumption, please see David Hume’s critique of cause and effect in his A Treatise of Human Nature and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.)

 
In areas of non-economic human interaction, the differentiation is much more difficult and usually impossible to make. A person listens to a fishing story from a black man or woman and assumes that they are lying about the size of the catch because they are black or a woman. Such would be irrational and thus stereotype because even basic life experience leads to the conclusion that everyone lies when they want to lie regardless of sex or skin color — thus this stereotype can also be described as evil sexism and racism. However, what if the person does not believe the story simply because based on 25 years of life experience with fishing and dozens of fishing stories they have honestly made the generalization that “all fishermen exaggerate the size of their catch”? We cannot simply say that such is stereotype because it is based solely on one person’s experience but has never been scientifically tested. The vast majority of our generalizations by which we survive the day and life have never been and will never be tested scientifically and are based solely on our experience. In this latter situation, the statement about fishing cannot be formally or practically stated to be either a generalization or a stereotype and may be either, and no conclusion can be made as to whether it is inherently good or evil; any such moral conclusion would depend on the circumstances of its use. Some people make this conclusion about fishing, use it to survive in life, and it is simply an unfortunate reality of human nature that it needs generalization and stereotype to survive in life.

 
Logically therefore, there is a difference between generalization and stereotype. However, in practice, it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to make this differentiation. In the difficult cases, if there is any hope of making the differentiation, it would require a logical but open mind, life experience with the facts at issue, and empathy to make the differentiation — traits entirely lacking in the author of “Between the World and Me” and in most popular pundits on racism or classism, either for or against. Without this combination of traits, outside of science and technology where generalizations actually can be empirically tested, a generalization becomes a stereotype or the other way around when the individual making an argument wants to make the change. A generalization though logically sound can be either good or evil. A stereotype is logically unsound and not good but not necessarily evil. What about specifically racism and classism? What are they? Good or evil? Are either a necessary part of social and cultural interaction, arbitrary creations of the human will, or both depending on the situation?

 
On an individual level, classism and racism when acting as stereotypes are equally evil. They each will result in a situation of one person acting upon or toward another irrationally for purposes of oppression. When acting as generalizations, that is resulting from a rational basis, each is equally good. However, when individual generalizations or stereotypes some time join and some time conflict in a social fabric of almost infinite interactions serving as a basis for social and cultural power distribution and normative principles, classism not only is the greater evil but unfortunately it is a necessary evil. As the Good Book says, the battle is not always to the strong nor the race to the swift but that is the way to bet. Through the science of genetics and cosmetic surgery, we may eventually live in a world without racism because eventually there may be no races. We will never live in a world without classism. As even Christianity admits, “[y]ou will always have the poor among you …” Matthew, 26: 11; Mark 14: 7. Why this is true will be discussed in the next set of blogs.