This book is a conceptual analysis of race and class. It begins as a contemplation of my personal life experience with both varying from my white trash emigrant beginnings to my Ivy League education. It then goes on to an analytic contemplation of the past meanings of race and class, their present use and usefulness, and the future use and usefulness of these concepts. I argue that social class distinctions are a necessary attribute of any modern Technological Society just as they have always been a necessary aspect of all past civilizations. The only new attribute of class struggle that Technological Society creates is its ability to isolate individuals in the lower classes from any social bonding with others in their class and thus potentially ending class struggle and making present ruling class ideology permanent resulting in the death of history. However, the death of history is not the end of history. I argue that such death may not be a bad thing given the material benefits and power Technological Society creates for humanity’s need to explore, discover, and conquer the universe. I argue that race distinctions will continue to be used and be usefulness as a means to maintain class distinctions and as a business model for profit. In modern Technological Society, the humanities act solely as a means for normative power. Distinctions such as race serve both as a means to keep individuals in the lower classes isolated and unable to struggle together and as a means for monetary profit by those humanities holding normative power.
If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him.
— Ludwig Wittgenstein
Is god moral? To contemplate this question, we must have some agreement on the meaning of the words “morality” and of “God”. For simplicity, I will usually use the classical “He” to reference God since I lose track of the present fad of grammatically cycling between “She” and “He” and because “It” seems to lessen the seriousness of my contemplation. Personally, I do not care whether God is a He, She, or Whatever.
I submit the meaning of the word “God” is probably easier to agree upon existentially. We have to contemplate this question in the same way one would contemplate the ontological proof of God: from the perspective of the word “God”, that is of our definition and understanding of the existential meaning of the word “God”. Whatever meaning that word has for anyone regardless of whether they are a theist or an atheist or anything in between, its one necessary and universal attribute would be that the word “God” by definition means the reason for their being something instead of nothing — this is true even of a pantheistic version of God in which the universe and its existence occurs by necessity or simply by luck through the workings of universal scientific empirical laws and thus these laws are your God. Agnosticism is not rational; since this is a rational contemplation, I am not dealing with agnosticism. I am therefore I think — I think in particular and especially about my existence. If I think then I think of the reason for there being something instead of nothing including there being me. It is irrational, delusional, and cowardly to fail to take a position on the reason I or anything exists.
For morality, the only attribute for its meaning that is universally agreed upon is that it is an act of will. It is an act of will giving meaning to a meaningless universe. That we “will” may be an illusion and the choices we make pre-destined or pre-determined by empirical material reality but even if such is true, all moral, immoral, and amoral choices would still be called and are acts of will or choices — free or not. Morally, immorally, and even amorally, even if I am pre-determined or pre-destined to be something, I can still reject that something. If there is no free will other than the illusion of freedom, such rejection will only be nominal and a fight I cannot ever hope to win but it is still there as a choice and a powerful one at least existentially if not for anything else. It is a choice that will define me and give meaning to the meaninglessness of my life even if it is a predestined or predetermined life because morality as the absurd hero Meursault of Albert Camus’s The Stranger finally realized as he faced the gallows is “opening [one’s] heart to the benign indifference of the universe” and willing to give its meaninglessness meaning. There is a large existential difference between accepting one’s fate and fighting against it — even if the fight is destined to end in loss. Remember the last words of Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus; as Sisyphus looked down and contemplated his meaningless task and became conscious of his wretched condition, in this tragic moment he realized “[t]he struggle itself […] is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy”. (For a more detailed analytic contemplation of the meaning of the words “free will”, please see Wittgenstein on the ‘Illusion’ of Free Will.)
As contemplated earlier, ethics, good, and evil are meaningless when discussing God. But what about morality? Despite His necessary nature, does it make sense to talk about God making moral, immoral, or amoral choices? Or, as Socrates asked, is something moral because God wants it or does She want it because it is moral? If the reason for there being something instead of nothing is simply the universe and you are an atheist or your God is pantheistic, it makes no sense to apply any concept of morality to God — the universe simply is, its meaning is to exist. Its existence precedes its essence and precedes language and thus any wordgame of morality. What if you have a personal God such as the Christian God Who is a Being? He is an infinite, omnipresent, and all-powerful Being but still a Being. As a Being, is He able to will the universe to have meaning and thus have a morality? At first impression, it appears that the concept of morality should apply to a personal God. However, in reaching this first impression, we forget what morality is: willing to give meaning to a meaningless universe. Even a personal God does not need to will anything nor does He need meaning; His existence is its own meaning. She is complete and whole, infinitely and completely in Himself or Herself or whatever your personal God may be and Existence is the meaning of God. Therefore, God is not moral or immoral but the best way to describe even a personal theistic God is to say He is completely amoral. I must say the “best way” or seems because as with the pantheistic God, this existence that is the essence of God also precedes language and thus logically and strictly speaking is something “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.
God being amoral or the wordgame of morality not applying to God makes perfect sense as Wittgenstein’s famous quote above brings out. If God were really just another moral busybody or even the most powerful moral busybody of all telling me how I should be living my life in the short span I have in life, He is no better than any other moral busy body except in degree not in substance or essence. He is no better in quality than any other existentially created morality that makes my life simply a mascot for its sense of morality; I might as well create my own morality and enjoy being a god myself.
That should answer the question as to whether God is moral for all concepts of God, except for Christianity and its Trinity or any equivalent form of theism or polytheism. I suggest that the theologians of the early Church came up with the Trinity concept as a way around the amoral nature of God. As always, the ancients were a lot smarter than what we give them credit for being. Since the Trinity includes a person who is human, Jesus Christ, the question of His morality must continue. Given that Jesus Christ — the Jesus Christ Person in the Christian God — is human, is Jesus Christ moral? Regardless of what one might think of Him, there can be no dispute that He is moral. According to the Christian concept of what Jesus Christ is and then on to the Beatitudes and on to anything that can be ascribed to him, this Christ Person does want to give meaning to life and does not exist simply as having the power of His Existence be its own meaning and an end in itself. According to the Trinity dogma, there is a Third Person, the Holy Spirit, that is the relationship between God the Father and the Christ Person. So for a Christian with Faith, the answer is that God, through Jesus Christ, is moral. God loves us, wants us to be happy, will reward us in heaven for following his morality, so on, and so forth. At this point, we are leaving rationality and getting into Kierkegaard’s existential Leap to Faith and of Pascal’s Gamble that are beyond this essay.
However, the Trinity problem does not solve the initial question we are asking. So far, there is no problem with the use of words. Like the ontological proof, we are dealing with logically subtle and abstract but sound and valid reasoning derived from the very meaning of the words and concepts used. Morality is an act of the will, not of reason. Morality is an individual willing meaning into the world. And thus, evil is the opposite of whatever this good the individual defines to be. God, in the non-Christian sense is amoral because God just is. The Christian option seems to be that in exchange for accepting as a necessary part of God’s amoral nature all the suffering that has been, is, and will be part of humanity — in exchange for accepting that — we will be rewarded with happiness in heaven by the human person in God: Jesus Christ. By accepting the massacre of the innocents, I will be happy. Such beliefs do give meaning to life and thus are a morality.
But it is not one with which I want to be involved. Or, morally should be involved? Why not? Because it is unfair and unjust — it is not a fair and just way of getting results. So what? Again, it is God’s universe. He can do with it as He or She pleases. Why do I not want to be involved in it? Is it altruism on my part or arrogance and conceit? Is it because I want to have greater power than God? Since God is amoral, is He also unjust and unfair? I will consider these questions next.
This next essay dealing with this question was supposed to deal with the issue of whether God is moral. However, I’m going out of context for this essay because of comments that I have received. Some still say that the question of why God hates the poor is the same as asking why God allows good and evil. It is not the same question. I’m going to use the argument for “intelligent design” as a means to further explain and differentiate why my question is distinct from and is not the same as the question of why does God allow good and evil to exist.
The argument called intelligent design is made by its proponents as an argument for the existence of a personal God in opposition to some evolutionists who argue there is no such God. Logically, in terms of the nature and philosophy of science both arguments are essentially nonsense because neither argument is scientific. Statistical analysis and correlation are all modern science needs to be science. This essay series does not deal in the philosophy of science so I will not deal with the nature of evolution nor philosophy of science but only contemplate the intelligent design argument as a means to specify and clarify the relationship between God and the poor. The argument from intelligent design is substantively unsound and a fallacy because there is no intelligent design in the universe. From the smallest part of reality and onto the largest and from the smallest event in history and onto the largest historical events, reality and history is ruled by arbitrary and random acts. Everything in life is essentially decided by luck, despite popular opinion to the contrary. For example, even supposed obvious differences in good and evil in popular opinion between a Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and an Adolf Hitler and the events of which they were a part are not the result of any inherent differences in the universe, in their nature, or any intelligent design, but of pure luck. With a change of birthplace, parents, education, and class upbringing, the places of even such obviously different individuals in history as hero or villain would easily have been exchanged. In fact, five hundred years from now historians will treat these three as equals. If anything, historians will investigate and write about how Churchill and Roosevelt got away with their many historical blunders and outright evil acts to cause human suffering that created the power of a Hitler.
Reading, writing, or crying about genocide, fascism, Nazism, or whatever the latest fad evil political -ism may be and dividing historical individuals into heroes or villains is a shallow understanding of the absurdity of life, history, and the universe. Only those ignorant of history divide history into the good and the bad and into heroes and villains, male or female, of one race or of no race. Regardless of the majestic greatness of one’s heroes or the despicableness of one’s villains — be it a Churchill, Hitler, Muhammad, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, or whoever — the historical good or evil of individuals and of social constructs is not the substance of reality. Such concepts of good and evil, hero and villain in history are purely results decided as a matter of luck and the roll of circumstantial dice. The winners in life need not ever worry about morality, ethics, or the law; such are concerns only for the losers. Simple creation of historical heroes and villains gives meaning to one’s life and creates a simple morality of good and evil that ignores the banality of evil and the haphazardness of both good and evil in daily existence — that is in individual life, the only reality of which an existentialist is certain. If Hitler had died in his youth in the trenches of the Western Front or during one of the first half-dozen assassination attempts upon him, he would be remembered as a courageous recipient of two Iron Crosses who died for his country and for workers’ rights — in fact, if he had died during one of those early assassination attempts upon him, he would probably to this day be remembered as a hero and martyr for socialism. In which case, Churchill — if remembered at all — would be remembered as he was known during World War I: a self-aggrandizing, dishonest, ambitious, political hack psychopath from a rich family whose fortunes he squandered and who was responsible for the Gallipoli Campaign disaster. Muhammad is essentially a 7th Century Hitler who succeeded in creating a one thousand year reich and thus as victor is a prophet instead of a villain. Dr. King and Mandela were lucky to have racism as their opponent. As exhibited by their sexual conquests of women, patrician personal ambitions, and political shrewdness to take credit for the work of others and to let others do their killing and dirty work for them, they would be just another 1984 O’Brien will-to-power conqueror if they had a more sympathetic opponent. Gandhi was a racist patrician wife-beater who was lucky to have others do is killing for him. Such individuals are not really individuals but social construct values created for marketing purposes by patricians.
The reality of history is that 90% to 95% of individual humans regardless of status in life as poor, rich, slave, free, beggar, worker, and so forth if put in the right circumstances would knowing and intentionally kill every other human being or watch idly as others knowing and intentionally kill every other human being — including eventually those watching. The only difference for the modern patricians of our Technological Society is the law allows them the power to have others do their killing for them. The individuals who make up each of these two classes of bound variables arbitrarily and randomly change each moment of life. The heroes who make up the 5% or 10% at any given moment who would rather be killed than kill another or watch another be killed will move over randomly and arbitrarily as a coincidence of sometimes insignificant changes in circumstances to the other set made up of killers. Meanwhile, some of the killers will at that same moment transfer over to become heroes. Thus, the existential reality is that 100% of individuals under the right circumstances would knowing and intentionally kill every other human as a matter of brute and irrational or even rational force.
It is pure luck that has made one set heroes and the other villain. And the same is true of all heroes and villains throughout history. The real intelligent design of the universe is more analogous to a poker game in which God is the dealer, calls the games, knows the players, and sets the antes, raises, and bets. Not only does He know the players and the cards, but He made the players, who are what they are because He made them in the same way that He made the cards and thus the probabilities are what they are because He made them. In theory, giving God the benefit of a doubt by assuming that He does not cheat and by assuming quantum randomness not deterministic classical randomness, we can say He does not control the outcome of each hand nor of the game. These are decided purely by the luck of the draw, the probabilities of the given deck, game, and hands, and on each player’s ability to read the probabilities and the other players. In theory, this game universe is an empirically just and fair universe in which there really is no good or evil. The best player wins and deserves to win. No one can say that it is an evil that the best player wins nor in any practical sense can we say that it is unjust that the best player wins and the loser loses.
It becomes unjust, unfair, and evil only when we bring morality into the mix and by that I mean we view the game from outside of the game. The best player, given his God-given abilities, at any given time can do nothing but win. And the worst player, given his God-given abilities, at any given time can do nothing but lose. The reality of this card game universe in which the winners and losers are set is really much worse. As the dealer, God is entitled to call the ante and to set the highest bets and raises. If He calls a big enough ante, bet, or raise, many people are excluded from playing, let alone having any chance of winning — even assuming they had all equal other abilities to win.
In the big picture of this card game universe, it does not really matter whether player A, B, C, or D wins, as long as they keep playing to keep the universe going. To make matters worse, God creates the players so that they will only play if there are winners and losers. No one who wants to play in this card game universe is going to keep playing if there are no winners or losers. Everyone wants and believes that they can be a winner until it is too late. Why would God design such a universe to favor some players over others? Of course, many noncompetitive altruistic types who may be reading this would see an easy solution to the problem: simply don’t play. But that is equivalent to saying simply do not play the game of life and ignore the way the game is designed. This is easy to say if you want to live the life of a hermit waiting for Christ to return in the Last Judgment, then it’s easy to say don’t play the game. You are essentially choosing death. However, if you want to live, prosper, or at least survive in the real world, you have to play the game, and you have to play to win. Or otherwise, those who only care about winning take everything you have: mind, body, and soul. God is God, so there’s nothing stopping him from creating such an unfair universe. But also, there’s nothing stopping Him from not creating this game, so why does He do it — instead of creating a different one that is fair? Is God moral?
In the perspective of my poker game example, it seems that this question is one of justice or fairness because He treats some creations better than others, but it really isn’t. Justice and fairness only have meaning in relation to a morality. Is the question of whether God is moral the same as asking whether He is just or fair? Now that you hopefully understand why I differentiate the question of good and evil from the question of why God hates the poor, I will go back to the intended next question in this series, is God moral?
Why does God hate the poor? It is not my intent to complain about this problem. Such would be a waste and equivalent to complaining about it becoming dark at night. I accept as an indisputable and unchanging fact of life that cannot be altered by human action that humanity always will be as George Orwell described it; I quote him from his book 1984:
Throughout recorded time and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world. The high, the middle, and the low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they’ve born countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from age to age. But the essential structure of society is never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself. Just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium however far it’s pushed one way or the other. The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the high is to remain where they are. The aim of the middle is to change places with the high. The aim of the low, where they to have any aim, for it is an abiding characteristic of the low that they are too much crushed by drudgery, to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives, is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history’s struggle, which is the same in its main outlines, reoccurs over and over again. For long periods, the high seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the middle, who enlist the low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the middle thrusts the low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the high. Presently a new middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims.
Would it be an exaggeration to say that throughout history, there has been no progress of any 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 humanity, human equality, any millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the low, no historical change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.
The only problem with this great description of reality by George Orwell is its limitation to recorded time. Even assuming there is such a thing as unrecorded time as distinct from recorded time, separation of humans into the lows and highs seems not to be limited to any social construct but seems to be an undisputed absolute truth of human nature. In all possible worlds in which there are human beings, this social construct will exist and thus it is not solely a social construct. All humans living and treating each other as equals and loving each other may be a vision of Heaven but would be a short, boring, mind-numbing, lazy, life on earth. Without struggle and battle for something, human life would be shallow, boring, cowardly, and short — unless you were self-centered enough to become an amoral god ignoring reality to live in the timeliness and thus the power of the moment throughout a shallow, cowardly, and passionless life.
Phrasing the problem as a matter of evil existing in the world misstates the nature of the problem. One of my philosophy professors phrased it as follows: evil exists in the world; if God exists, there are only two reasons for evil’s existence: either He wants it to exist, or He cannot stop it from existing; either way, He is not God. This phrasing of the problem is a fallacy, because the concepts of good and evil are human creations. God by definition is the reason there is something instead of nothing. The something can be whatever God wants it to be. If this something involves pain and suffering for His creations, so be it, it is His creation. He can do whatever He wants with it. It makes no sense to say that before creation there existed a requirement that God’s creation must be friendly and kind to any beings He creates. He created creation, it is what it is. As I discussed in an earlier essay, ethics is simply a set of rules created by those in power to stay in power. It makes no sense to demand that God be ethical. He is the ultimate power and source of all power. He makes whatever rules He wants. It makes no sense to talk as if He has a choice between good or evil or wills good or evil. The concept of choice and will necessarily involve an incomplete being that needs something. God is omnipresent, infinite, and complete by definition. He does not need anything, and thus there are no choices that He has to make nor for Him to want or will anything. He and His nature all exist by necessity. As the philosopher Spinosa described, we may just be moments in the infinite necessary existence of God contemplating Himself and thus we have the perception of time, choice, and will; but, it is simply human perception that sees choices and will. God’s existence and all aspects of His nature exist by necessity.
The problem as I have phrased it is a more accurate description because the issue is a bigger problem of morality. Given that God is the reason we exist, does He owe individual creations anything for giving us existence we never requested? Do we owe Him something for making us exist? Given all of the evil that has existed in the world, including evil inflicted on innocents such as infants and beasts of burden, even if God were to offer us eternal happiness in Heaven simply by accepting Him as He is, would it not be our moral burden to reject it? Why does God prefer certain people over others? You can call it divine predestination, class conflict, or whatever. The reality of human nature, for other than a completely solitary hermit existence, is that God prefers to have about 1% to at most 10% of humanity at any given time live much better than the remainder of humanity and to have the power of oppression over the remainder of humanity. For this small percentage of humanity, at any given time, life has meaning of their own creation. For the remainder of humanity at any given time, their meaning of life is purely to serve the meaning created by these few Powers-that-be. In the absence of such service, life is nothing but meaningless anguish. At best they are gifted with their life being short. Dostoevsky wrote a couple of great novels asking these questions, The Brothers Karamazov and The Possessed, but never answered these questions. These are questions that must be answered as part of trying to answer the overall question of why does God hate the poor.
Let us try to build on prior essays to approach this question, try to answer it, and try to see if there is an answer as philosophers not as polemics by self serving gods. The first issue that we must approach in trying to answer this question is whether the concept of morality even applies to God. Is God moral?
Why does God hate the poor? This is a question that is very difficult to analyze rationally because of the nature of reason. Other than for logical techniques such as mathematics and pure logic, reason seems only to be capable of expressing pragmatic truth about the subject matter of its reasoning. That is, it only serves as a tool for solving a given problem and that solution can only be proven false by the problem — when the solution fails. Reason can never provide solutions that are true in all possible worlds nor can it state a truth that is true in all possible worlds. I say “seems” because when reason expresses doubt about its ability for certainty, it disproves its own skepticism either by formally stating that it is true there is no truth or by stating it is absolutely true that all truth is contingent or relative. Using “seems” to try to get around or to describe this problem or limitation of human reason causes its own problems.
What does “seems” mean? Does rational thought necessarily lead to a phenomenological view of reality that is worthless for anything but allowing academics to generate endless verbiage saying nothing about “nothing” — since according to them there’s nothing except what they are saying about the nothing that is out there for which we need them to “deconstruct” it for us. If I do not know what is out there, how can it “seem” like something or anything? What does “seem” mean? What does any word mean? These are problems in the philosophy of language that are beyond the limitations of these essays. We just need to be aware of these problems when we try to contemplate questions such as this dealing with the nature of God.
I am trying to deal here with a real problem that has troubled many philosophers and myself my whole life: why does God hate the poor? Trying to resolve this problem in any way through religious faith, especially by Christian faith, always fails me; so this problem continues to bother me. Responding to this problem by telling me that life is not a problem to be solved but a mystery or reality to be experienced only makes it worse by proving the severity of the problem. Why are there some people in life who have enough time on their hands and the opportunity not only to sit around and abstractly come up with bullshit such as this, but they also have the motive, opportunity, and ability then to go around and if not lecture at least to profess to others that life should be a mystery or what life should be while the majority of the world, including me, is simply trying to survive and are responding on a daily basis to problems and situations trying to destroy that survival. Sure, telling the poor that they should be poor in spirit as well as poor materially would solve their spiritual suffering, if not their physical suffering, but why should anyone be poor in spirit and poor in material wealth and poor in their options in life when it is just as possible to be wealthy and powerful and to be poor in spirit?
The so-called Church Father St. Augustine is a perfect example to what I am referring. He spends most of his life wealthy, carousing, fornicating, fathering and abandoning children, drinking, and generally having an overall great time, until he gets bored with such worldly pleasures and decides that he wants to possess outer- worldly pleasures. So, he decides to be saved by belief in Jesus Christ. And now with the certainty of eternal life in Heaven, he goes around lecturing to others to be poor and not to live life carousing, fornicating, fathering and abandoning children, drinking, and generally having an overall great time. Even with this conversion, he does not become poor in spirit or materially in any way. Instead of being a Power-that-be among the upper class of his native city of Hippo in North Africa, he becomes a Power-that-be among the new Power in antiquity, the Christian Church. It was perfect timing. If he had stayed a rich pagan, his class might have expected him to risk his life and to defend the city against the barbarian Vandals coming to destroy them. “Barbarian” is a word to describe ambitious poor people that are trying to become rich. Instead, by converting and becoming a church father, he avoided this personal and economic risk because the Vandals respected the Church, Church property, and its ministers. The rich always get away with such hypocrisy. President George W. Bush is a great modern example. Here is a dude that spends most of his life as a lazy, ignorant, cokehead; who wastes what little education his family paid for him to receive and wastes all the business opportunities he had; until one day he decides he wants to be president of the United States. At that point, he sees the light of Christianity and goes on to use preaching and his family connections to become President and start two wars in which others do his killing for him.
(Coates is another example of which I have written about extensively in prior essays.)
I’m fully aware that by making such complaints I come off as greedy, whiny, and spiteful, as the poor usually do when complaining about their lot in life — unless they reach the point of complete depression, desperation, or starving in the street, at which point they become a temporary object of pity and charity for the rich. If the poor materially try to fight their way out of hopelessness and material poverty, they are considered greedy and spiteful barbarians again. Unlike the rich and powerful whose greed, ambition, and aggressive competitiveness are the forces that move the economic world throughout history to be sustainable and evolve, regardless of whether you call it barter, mercantilism, imperialism, capitalism, or whatever the present day economic “-ism” may be. My intent here is not to complain about this as a problem. Such would be a waste and equivalent to complaining about it becoming dark at night. It is an undisputed and unchanging fact of life that cannot be altered by human action that humanity is and always will be divided into the powerful who can create meaning in life and the remainder of the powerless whose meaning in life is to serve the meaning created by the powerful with their only other choice being a lifetime of struggle, fight, and battle against that meaning — a meaningless struggle that they will always be destined to lose. The details of this division in human nature were best described by George Orwell in his book 1984 which I will contemplate.
For any amateur Christian theologians out there who may read this, I want to point out that this issue is also a Christian theological issue. The New Testament quotes Jesus several times as saying, “The poor, you will always have with you.” — Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, and John 12:8. So this is not only a philosophical issue, but also a significant theological issue.
The previous contemplated attributes of class and of working class posers are relatively minor, the big one is Doublethink ethics. Orwell’s Doublethink “means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them” as true. As contemplated previously, the ruling class in any social construct consists of those that can define what ought to be and force their normative reality on the remainder. However, they are not obvious in this use of force, it is hidden behind what they call ethics and its own Doublethink by which they hold two contradictory moral beliefs simultaneously, accept both of them as true, and force both normative realities upon others by violence if need be as true and moral. By belief here I am using Pragmatism’s definition of belief: beliefs are rules of action. The ruling classes in any given social construct come by Doublethink naturally and hide it naturally, so much so that usually they do not even know they are speaking Doublethink and would view anyone accusing them of speaking it as either insane or as immoral and unethical. The ruling class and posers pretending not to be in the ruling class of any given social construct use Doublethink ethics that can best be described by example.
I recently had the misfortune of being in a class at NYU in which Visiting Scholar Dawn Chan had the class read Dennis Cooper’s book review in Bookforum of Larry Clark’s book The Perfect Childhood as an example of good, ethical, aesthetically pleasing humanist writing. In this review, Mr. Cooper tells how this book reminded him of a young, “white-trash street-hustler”, homeless, derelict, young drug addict he used to pay for homosexual sex and how he can still taste him now in more recent casual sex he has. According to the book review, the white trash hustler died of an overdose at age 24. Not only did the class not see a problem with any of this, but they went on to examine how this “relationship” between the older Cooper and the young drug addict was probably important to both their lives and that it is more important to “have loved and lost” than never to have loved at all.
Now, imagine what would have happened if I had some old-school Asiatic fleet sailor write and read to the class a book review gloating about a young, Filipino, derelict, drug addicted, female, street hooker he used for sex who died of an overdose and how a book reminds him and gives him the taste of that sex? Would this be accepted as a relationship involving “better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all” or simply for what it was: an act of oppression and power but at least it was one occurring between two social equals in the misery of life. In Mr. Clark’s case it was an upper class older patrician using a young man he considered “white trash” purely for sexual purposes. Why is the former immoral and unethical oppression but the latter not? Not only was the latter acceptable, it was treated as a moral and ethical good.
Do not waste time trying to understand it; it cannot be understood. Contradictions held simultaneously allow for everything to be true and false simultaneously. There are an uncountable number of contradictions in this example and in ruling class morality and ethics that ultimately are simply ruling class ideology enforced by violence but that are all accepted and held as true. This Doublethink in ethics is not a sign of being insane but of being ruling class. One of the omnipresent contradictions in present ruling class ideology and ethics that they will enforce by violence whenever they can is that white males are by definition oppressors in all possible worlds unless they are gay in which case they are beautiful oppressed persons regardless of their acts and regardless of either the individual or social consequences of those acts.
Unfortunately, for the working class, most of our morals and ethics are inherited. It has to be. We are too busy trying to survive when we are young to start questioning the morality and ethics of the only persons who are trying to help us survive in life consisting of the small social group around us. As contemplated before, we cannot survive and battle the universe alone. Furthermore, we need to think rationally in order to survive; holding contradictions to be true so as to make everything true or false is great for aesthetic truth and its power but is worthless if you actually have work and a job to do that needs to solve problems and be done and accomplished at some point so that one can get paid. As the lyrics to the song “Working Class Hero” state, by the time you are old enough to do anything about your ethical inheritance, it is too late:
As soon as you’re born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you’re clever and they despise a fool
Till you’re so fucking crazy you can’t follow their rules
When they’ve tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can’t really function you’re so full of fear
The ruling class and its posers do not have this problem. For them, almost from their first acts of reason and language, they understand the world ought to be what they want it to be, and can have this understanding without it in anyway risking their chances of survival. So, for example, to our present ruling class the couple Barack and Michelle Obama represent an oppressed minority even though for eight years they were the most powerful couple in the world. Anyone that can Doublethink in this way and do it so naturally that they do not hesitate nor give any indication of doubt are truly either upper class posing as oppressed, completely class clueless, or one of their house servants kissing up to the Powers.
It was always a fad in the United States to say that one worked their way up from the working class. Even President Trump tried it during his campaign but his inheritance of three thousand apartment units in Queens kinda ruined that, so he stuck to sounding as if he did — he does a great job of it. The latest fad is to be oppressed. Everyone is doing it. The point of this blog contemplation is not to promote class or classism as oppression or as an excuse for anything that goes wrong in society or in one’s life. My purpose is to describe class as it is as a fact of reality in the same way physics must accept the four basic forces — gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak — as the means for describing physical interactions. Class is the foundation means for describing social interaction. Racism is a subset of classism. Just as physics may some day do away with the four basic forces to replace them with an alternate theory of physical interactions but it will always have physical interactions, some day we may eliminate racism to replace it with an alternate type of class subset struggle but we will always have class struggle. Unlike Marxism and its progeny, this contemplation does not include a means, belief, or contemplation for an eventual proletarian or other revolution that will eliminate class. My desire is for the United States to do what the Roman Republic and then the Roman Empire did: acknowledge class as a necessary attribute for social construct survival and explicitly incorporate it into our normative constructs such as the law instead of living the delusion we are classless and suffering the resulting waste of valuable resources and social energy on this delusion and its associated wasted hate instead of discovering, exploring, and conquering the universe. There are plenty of other things in the universe for which we need the power and clarity of hate other than for hating each other.
History is class struggle; eliminate the struggle and we eliminate history. Regardless of any hate I have for specific humans, I do not hate humanity to the point of wanting its historical annihilation. So, I am forced to accept class structure and classism as a necessary part of life. All the known forces of social construction of either quantitative or qualitative progress can be traced to class struggle interactions. There may in fact be a loving God who loves humanity because this is the only ontological means by which to explain how humanity continues to exist and prosper despite having no epistemic and metaphysical clue as to what is going on or what we are doing including being completely ignorant as to the meaning and purpose of our existence. However, it is also undisputedly true that this loving God proved by this existential ontological proof loves some of His creations more than others. Which is fine, He is God, He can do whatever the f__k He wants to do. Ultimately, God is Power. Why God hates the poor is a question contemplated by a separate podcast at Sand Pebbles Podcast / Theology. It is only their hijacking of Christian ideology telling us that God loves us that has given patricians the arrogance to question God by their moral and ethical standards. If one is going to judge God, my demand would be at least to do so with the integrity and honesty of doing it out of the will-to-power clarity of hate and its morality deciding it is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven instead of hiding behind hidden Christian ideology. The problem with such integrity and honesty in morality and ethics is the same problem that honesty and integrity create in all social constructs: it defeats the will-to-power. It is much easier to achieve power by pretending one does not have a will-to-power.
So, everyone wants to be oppressed in order to oppress. We need to find a means, attributes, method, or technique by which to separate the posers from the real thing. In one sense, this is impossible because everyone can find some item of oppression in their lives — even patricians have some misery in their lives. So I must limit myself here to oppression by class. At present in the Eastern world, this is easy to do by economics. If one is still suffering unnecessary famine and disease and living on subsistence farming in the 21st Century earning a few dollars a month, one is by definition oppressed. In the United States, even the poorest live better than most of the world, so this attribute is not a universal but is definitely an accurate one when it applies. Until law hijacked Christian theology, we could use the law as our guide. Chattel slavery of and by all races is an obvious example but there are an uncountable number of means by which the law in history intentionally protected and maintained class oppression. In fact, this is the entire purpose of law, to maintain order and the status quo in the historical class struggle. The oppressed only achieve temporarily victories by illegal acts with the class war always eventually lost to the law; no need for me to quote again Orwell’s 1984 description of the omnipresence of the High, Middle, and Low as I have done previously. The question is what attributes, method, or techniques will give us this needed guide for differentiation? I am going to try to review some specific examples of posing to see if there is a pattern.
Coates is a bad example to analyze because he is such an obvious fraud. Even a basic cursory review of his writings and history shows him to be a poser as I have done in previous essays and as many other writers have done. He is only relevant to the extent he serves as a specific attribute of being a poser: anyone that thinks Coates is or has been oppressed is clueless as to the reality of class struggle and thus must be from a patrician class. We need more general guidance.
I have recently come across a more subtle example of posing as the oppressed consisting of a speech given by my classmate from Harvard Michelle Obama at a Tuskegee University commencement. The speech contains the usual commencement posturing and nonsense in which Ms. Obama, a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate who grew up upper middle class with educated parents and who after working as a corporate attorney for ten years decided to retire to be the wife of a rich man, gives advice to supposedly oppressed college students that has very little to do with reality but at one point states the following paragraph that can help us:
Instead they will make assumptions about who they think you are based on their limited notion of the world. And my husband and I know how frustrating that experience can be. We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives — the folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety; the clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores; the people at formal events who assumed we were the “help” — and those who have questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country.
Let us go over the “sting” of those “daily slights” suffered throughout their entire lives.
“[T]he folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety”. Do not know what neighborhoods she grew up or lived in but it was not any type of working class or other lower class neighborhood of which I have ever known or studied; must be some upper middle class — white, black, or whatever — neighborhoods because they are the only ones that fear black people. Rich white people including those that are black might fear black people but not in my neighborhood. If she or her husband had come to my neighborhood, people would cross the street to confront them, tell them to leave, and physically threaten them if they did not. True racism does not involve fearing blacks or any race, it involves hating them. The same would happen if you had the wrong street colors on or where from a different ethnic neighborhood than the one in which you were in. Growing up, I wanted and wished that greasers and bigots would have had crossed the street when they saw me, it would have made my life much easier. If she really wanted to help the oppressed than she should encourage such fear of them by the oppressors because fear by the oppressor of the oppressed is a good thing; it gives the oppressed leverage to get concessions from the Powers-that-be. Thus, we have the first attribute of posers: if your alleged oppression consists of passive/aggressive acts or of simple verbal abuse, you are not oppressed — oppression must involve physical violence.
“[T]he clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores.” If the close eye was not a compliment because she was a good-looking woman but was something insulting or threatening than why did she not say something or at least stare back? Thus, we have the second attribute of posers: they expect others to fight their battles or do their killing for them.
“[T]he people at formal events who assumed we were the ‘help’”. I and my family are the help. Despite my present Harvard degree and my having worked my whole life, I still am the help, and I am treated as the help by corporate lawyers like Michelle Obama and her spoiled rich kid patrician husband and now most likely by their children at their private upper class schools. I respect the “help” and being compared to hard-working working class families who have worked their whole lives to support themselves and their families by being the “help” is a compliment not an insult — so f__k you. Thus, we have the third attribute of posers: they have nothing but contempt for the oppressed they pretend to be and pretend they want to help.
“[T]hose who have questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country”. Given the above three attributes, unless you are doing them intentionally, we should be questioning your intelligence and honesty. As to “love of country”, this raises a subtle issue. Patricians are really citizens of the world; ultimately, they all have the same interest of maintaining their power regardless of their country of origin. However, if one of them breaks this code of power, they are also very willing to kill each other to maintain it; or, at least that is how it used to be before modern Technological Society. Now, they no longer need to lead from the front and kill each other off; now, they just kill the citizens of their respective countries and do so from a safe distance using either machines or professionals. President Obama even had no problem with using drones to kill off United States citizens, so he is definitely a citizen of the world. So, I am unclear as to whether this is an attribute, means, method, or technique of patrician power. This question of love of country for the moment is an open issue.
So, we have at least these three attributes by which we can distinguish the oppressed from the posers. There may be more, and I will continue to contemplate and look for attributes, means, methods, or techniques for distinguishing posers from the real thing.