No Respect but Fear

One big difference between working class and non-working class and between old school blue collar working class and the modern white collar working class is the present respect and expectation of law and police as being a good. This difference is also one reason I know cosmic justice organizations that are blaming racial problems on institutional racism and white privilege are really a technique by upper class privileged and their intelligentsia to strengthen their power and classism.  Only the non-working class looks at the police and the law as a good to be respected and from which good is expected. As far back as I can remember in detail, I never respected the law nor the police just as no working class person should respect it. I feared it as any working class kid should but never respected it as no working class kid did or should — even in the present white collar working class. This is one major difference between the old school blue collar working class and the new white collar working class. If I ever had any hope for justice, it was for justice in the next life not in this one. Usually, I had no hope for justice just for peace. This is not because the working class is a bunch of dump hillbillies who did not know any better as falsely marketed by a new friend of the upper class J.D. Vance in his book Hillbilly Elegies telling the upper class and its intelligentsia what they want to hear (that the working class is dysfunctional). Our conclusions on law and the police were and are very rational and based on the reality of working class life. I write here as a summary of my life experience.  For a working class person’s analysis of Hillbilly Elegies that is not intended to say only what rich people want to hear, there are critiques such as The Self-Serving Hustle of “Hillbilly Elegy”.

The law was not and is never there when workers need it and when it was there it usually did and does make things worse. Some of this was a technology problem. We did not have 911 growing up. To my memory 911 was not added in Chicago until the early 80’s. So even if you had a burglar breaking through your window in the middle of the night with a gun, your first option was not to call the police. Even if you had memorized the number, which I never did nor knew anyone that did, picking up the rotary phone and dialing seven numbers with the clicking of the dial being heard all through house including the burglar was a fairly stupid option. Unless you had a gun yourself and were willing to use it and risk getting shot yourself or killing someone, the options involved running away, staying quiet hoping they take what they wanted and leave, or yelling to wake up the neighbors hoping one of them would call the police — at which point a rational burglar would leave. If someone jumped you in an alley, you could not pull out your cellphone and call the police. You either avoided the alley, fought back, or gave in. Now the law and police are everywhere and the average person commits three felonies a day without even knowing it. Worse, everyone is accustomed to having this Sword of Damocles the police everywhere and anywhere anything social is occurring.

More important, socially, the police were just another working class group fighting for the same resources we were. They had their turf just as the greasers (gangsters) had their turf. Smart thing to do was just to leave both of them alone as much as possible. If a cop with a gun told you to do something, you did it in the same way you followed the orders of a gangster with a gun. We did not expect reasonableness from either. Many police were former greasers; for many greasers as they got older, it was a choice between being a criminal and being a cop. The smart ones mostly became cops and the dumb ones criminals. That is pretty much how they investigated matters. The cops knew who the bad guys were, it was just a matter of waiting until they screwed up and they eventually always did. Being a cop was much safer though it did not always pay better in those days but the smarter ones found a way to make it pay better as I wrote in my previous blog essay on ethics. We did not have anything to steal and since we did not take vacations there was always someone at home and we did not have to worry about burglary. The big problem was violence inside the home and street violence. The police could not help with the family violence and still cannot except by destroying the family. As far as street violence goes, as long as you did not go out looking for trouble at night (as Ta-Nehisi Coates clearly did in his desire to be a big man in the neighborhood by beating up others and his teachers), you were not completely but fairly safe in terms of criminal violence. The smart and disciplined knew where the trouble was and worked around it or with it. The police and the law were the last not first option if one did need help.

Luckily, I grew up before the upper class introduced illegal drugs into working class communities, so I did not have to watch entire families being torn apart and generations of men jailed for something that should be legal and taxed with medical aid going to the addicted and their families.

Also, by the time I got to high school, I knew enough history to know that most of the good things we and the working class had in life consisting of the eventual union job for my Dad with its better pay and benefits and even basic concepts such as a 40-hour week, weekends, and over-time, double-time, and golden-time pay plus health insurance and a union pension were not the result of the law but of hard-fought physical fighting against the law — almost all of it involved illegal fighting, some of it done with the help of organized crime that was organized enough to take on the law. In fact, most of the successful union organizing and strikes were considered organized crime in their fruition and were prosecuted as a criminal conspiracy by the majesty of the law in the early days of union organizing. This is true throughout history. Capitalism maintains that humans are naturally greedy and compete and thus through this competition in a free market that wealth is created. The problem is that in practice what this means is that it is good for the rich to be naturally greedy. Just like the immigrants who are supposed to come to this country for truth, justice, and the American way not just for material wealth, workers are expected to be simple altruists: being a greedy materialist worker is simply being a greedy materialist worker not a good. Capitalism without doubt does create wealth, but the wealth is not and was never voluntarily distributed in any significant amount to the working class: they took it by violence. I wrote about this history in a previous blog essay dealing with the Haymarket Square riots and the resulting worldwide May Day celebration ignored in the United States.

My Dad’s Local in the Labors’ International Union was well known to have mafia connections and I do not doubt it did. As I stated before, I think the mafia is a bunch of scum. Admitting their involvement in union organizing is not meant to be praise. Their involvement in union organizing was not based on any altruism but purely on economic opportunity. It is not a coincident that union membership, strikes, wages, the 40-hour work week, job security, and the imposition of what is essentially a 24/7 on-call workweek for many white collar workers is occurring at the same time as the disappearance of unions and criminal enterprises strong enough to aid unions to take on the law. I am not saying it is directly associated but it is part of the same process. At the height of labor organizing in the late 19th and 20th Century there were thousands of strikes each year. There were 11 in 2014. There was a time when 30% of the labor force was unionized; it is down to 6% now with most of that government employees such as the police. The anti-union marketing and outright brainwashing have gotten so bad that white collar workers think worse of unions than they do of the law that is creating wage slavery to replace its chattel slavery.

Think about what would have to be accomplished if Millennials, Generation X, and others got tired of burning to death living in old warehouses (as is occurring in Oakland CA) making minimum wage because they could not afford decent apartments and decide to start a union. So, how do you organize one? Where do you get the money to do that? Private equity or venture capital? Unless you have a trust fund that you are willing to risk, there are no legal options for getting financing. Then what? No one cares. You move on anyway. Instead of putting on a mask and going to Berkeley to beat up on each other over gender identity, you go on strike and block the entrance gates of your employers’ place of business and prevent the hiring of new employees. How long do you think that will last? A few hours, a few minutes? You are now terminated from employment; cannot pay your rent and have no money. You do not even qualify for unemployment because you were terminated for cause. Your union and the strike are essentially over a few minutes after it started. Labor organizing is a risky business even in the best of times; there were hundreds of annual strikes during the Depression. Not only were the union organizers facing financial ruin but also facing the police and the army if necessary as strike breakers putting union members in jail not the employers. Both for money, personal protection, and for leverage, many times the only option those union organizers had for help with these necessities was organized crime. In theory, any private contractor in the Chicago area could have hired non-union construction laborers any time they wanted instead of hiring them from the Laborers’ Union. Some did. It was usual for that contractor to shortly thereafter suffer an office fire, the construction equipment stolen or destroyed, and the construction sites suffer fires and other vandalism. Predictably, when the contractor hired union labor, the problem stopped never to occur again. Lesson learned.

The working class is not made up of idiots. As with everyone else, 90% of them would probably have done nothing and taken whatever crumbs were given to them by the upper classes. Ten percent would not. When that 10% by luck were able to get the other 90% united with a will to fight, they all fought hard for what they got as they have throughout history.

Without doubt as everyone is quick to point out many of these unions were divided along ethnic, racial, trade, locality, and many other differences that caused them to fight each other as much as they fought their employers. At least they fought. As my life and the lives of many other in the working class establish, a solitary individual cannot fight the law and is simply a criminal. It takes social support: an extended supporting family, a group identity, an ethnicity, or anything to create a social unity and force strong enough to take on the law — legal or not. The first strike in America was by Polish workers: Jamestown Polish Craftsmen’s Strike of 1619. The strength of the first successful black union consisting of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters was successful because it could count on 100,000 black members to act in unison in an economic fight against the Powers. Do you think anyone could get 100,000 of anyone these days to act in unison against the law on anything? Or even suggest it without being arrested and jailed? If the new generation of white collar workers now wanted to take up the fight against the Powers, what social support would you have? Family? Maybe, if you have more than a single mother as family, but that is it. Fellow Polish, Italians, whites, blacks, the village, the neighborhood? Who? As far as I can see, the future that the new school working class wants and will get consists of unisex, homogeneous, culturally stagnant, one color, paper-cutouts of each other living solitary lives of temporary jobs without family, community, or other social support except for the handouts they get from Big Brother. Well, good luck with it. At least you will find the peace I always hoped for in this life.

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.

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 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, 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.

Reparations: How this Idea of Secular Original Sin Defines the Powers

As Victor Hugo said, “nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” Further, when its time has come, it does not matter who says it or how. “The Case for Reparations” by Ta-Nehisi Coates is an example of an idea that has taken over the powers of American academia and its politically correct intelligentsia if not yet the economic powers despite its fifth grade level logic and historical knowledge. Do not be certain that it never will come to dominate those economic powers and become reality — look at gay marriage and its rapid becoming of a cultural fad among those powers. There are many criticisms of his Reparations article out there that I need not repeat here. It is illogical, grossly inaccurate both historically and in terms of present reality, and badly written. Despite such, instead of being thrown in the trash never to see the light of day, thanks to white guilt that is apparently dominant among our academia and intelligentsia, it shows up as a cover article on what claims to be intelligent journalism — the Atlantic — with its author Mr. Coates receiving a “genius” award for it from a bunch of rich white folks.


I want to elucidate here what this reparations article, this idea, and its reception shows of how the powers-that-be think about life. This new concept of reparations is radically different from any previous idea or award of reparations such as those granted to World War II Japanese-American internees. Those reparations were paid to live people who were actually interned (for the usual political reasons, the Italian and German Americans interned were not included in the reparations). This new concept of reparations for slavery is essentially a secular form of original sin that is passed down through generations. The powers lead such sheltered lives of power and control in the present, oblivious to the evil around them and in their own souls, that the powers need to go out and look for evil in the past. Having found it (no surprise there), they have nothing better to do but to arbitrarily and randomly make ethical and moral judgments on the dead; then, they use these judgments as a basis to force upon present humanity their ethical judgments on how others ought to be and act — pretty much the same mentality that created the evil they discovered in the past.


There is no need to look into the past for evil. Right now, in the present, one child dies every four seconds from poverty, hunger, or easily preventable diseases and illnesses. You can close your eyes, reach out there and stick your finger on any newspaper, internet news page, television news channel, or whatever you use for news and find an evil that needs to be worked on. All the evils of  which Mr. Coates complains as having been forced upon “black bodies” of the past are still present and are being forced upon a portion of humanity, black and white, now in the present. Though chattel slavery is no longer officially legal, it still exists unofficially in parts of Africa, the Mideast, and in Southeast Asia. Wage slavery is everywhere. Predatory lending? Millions of white and black “bodies” lost their life savings in the predatory lending crashes of the last couple of decades and more will do so in the next one. These are just the tip of the ice berg. There are plenty of problems out there requiring the application of scientific and technological technique for resolution and the associated political, social, and ethical normative structure to allow that technique to work.


By “work” I mean the ability to make learned scientific predictions and test them to see if they work. This “work” presents difficult ethical and moral questions in the present, in the now! There is a present need to attack and deal with these questions to provide a normative framework for science and technical work. For every supposedly frivolous claim of injustice out there of which the powers complain there are a thousand injustices that have no remedies either legal or illegal. Ethical and moral decisions are acts of cultural or individual will stating how the world “ought” to be, they are not acts of reason describing how it is. As the philosopher David Hume established centuries ago, there is no rational or logical way to go from an “is” statement to an “ought” statement. Modern philosophy has been trying to find a way around this problem for centuries but has failed. Slavery, for example, is unethical and immoral now because we want it to be so now. Will it be so in the future? Hopefully but not necessarily. If at some point in the future, humanity either through social structure or individual acts decides as it did for millennia that it “ought” to have slavery, we will. It is a constant battle in the present to make sure that such is not our future.


When studying or viewing history, for anyone with any familiarity with history, it is for all practical purposes not only impossible but illogical and irrational to put blame or to put labels of good, evil, moral, immoral, ethical, or unethical on any particular person, race, sex, or any group of humanity. It exhibits supreme and ultimate arrogance — and I would say an evil nature — for a present, living individual to look back into the infinite amount of variables that affected the billions of lives that have lived in the past to conclude any one or group of them was immoral or unethical. They are all dead. One cannot say they “ought” to be doing anything. All they every did is done. I get into greater detail and analysis in my book “Between the World and Us” on this question. As philosophers of science, knowledge, and language have shown, it is not even possible for scientists to made such conclusions. Statements such as “F=ma” are true because they are the simplest versions of an explanation for certain events that can be tested and by failing the test can be proven false now, in the present. If they cannot be tested nor proven false by such tests, they are meaningless. It is not even possible to state that scientific statements will be true in the future as exemplified by relativity physics invalidating of this “F=ma” that is the soul of classical physics. Furthermore, it would make no sense to say that in the past a physicist such as Aristotle “ought” to have known this truth nor even that any given scientific statement was true in Aristotle’s time, since it may not be true in the future there is no reason to make it true in the past.


Yet, this is exactly what the powers including Mr. Coates do: they somehow believe that they have the universe’s authority to put ethical and moral blame on dead people who most likely acted in the same way that the powers including Mr. Coates would have acted if they were in the past situations and cultures that they condemn as immoral or unethical. They do not stop there. Having made their god-like “ought” judgments of dead people, they go on to use those arbitrary and random judgments to make “ought” judgments of what everyone else in the present should be doing. Thus repeating the same mentality that led to the evils of the past. The powers do not look into the past and see what at this point was billions of lives that have struggled and fought with life’s hardships to give us the modern world of today that is at least quantitatively better than their world but only see a class of people whom they can blame for failing to create the world they want.


Looking into the past, we can look at the use of words and make judgments as to the pragmatic effects of words as good or evil relative to what we want now. We want a world without slavery. As I discuss in detail in my book, because we achieved such a world through the “slave morality” of Christianity, we can say relative to this goal that Christianity is a good and we should help it spread and prosper — until it stops helping us achieve this goal. We can say, relative to our desire to avoid chattel slavery, that because slavery caused slavery in the past, it is an evil now that must constantly be stopped and punished. Making the jump from arguing present moral and ethical “ought” judgments to make “ought” judgments of dead people then to make “ought” judgments of what present “live” people “ought” to do exhibits the supreme god-like arrogance of the powers-that-be.


In fact, that is the definition of the powers-that-be: those that have the power to made the world in their own image, that have the time and resources to sit around and decide what others both alive and dead people “ought” to do or to have done and then to enforce their view of “ought” upon the rest of society. The working person usually only has two choices in life: work or go to jail. If they achieve the first with any stability, then their main goal is simply to be left alone to try to achieve some happiness or joy in life with whatever the powers let them have. The vast majority of slaves up until very recent history in the Western World were white slaves owed by white masters. Initially, racism probably resulted from upper class whites seeing their white wage slaves and black chattel slaves getting along with each other in their misery and thus seeing a need to create discord among them to avoid a threat to their power.


Reparations based on a concept of secular original sin creating white guilt is a new type of racism created by modern powers with the aid of such writers as Mr. Coates as a way to maintain the discord among the working class and to continue it into the future. In the present, where there is much potential for technology to solve so many problems in life and a great need for a normative structure to focus that potential, the fact that any powers are taking this reparations argument seriously shows how removed they are from reality. The idea that they can pass god-like ethical and moral judgment on the dead is bad enough, but this new concept that they can create original sin for generations of humans shows they are trying to go from being god-like to actual demigods in the same manner as the emperor-gods of the ancients. Just as the richest 1% of the world are getting richer and further removed from everyone else, with such new concepts of ruling class reality, it is only a matter of time before they completely separate from the rest of us to become Orwell’s Inner Party.

Chattel Slavery v. Wage Slavery in a Technological Society

Wages is a cunning device of the devil, for the benefit of tender consciences who would retain all the advantage of the slave system without the expense, trouble, and odium of being slaveholders. Orestes Brownson, Chattel Slavery vs. Wage Slavery, Boston Quarterly Review 3 (1840).

Ignorance of history is one of the defining characteristics of our modern technological society. In a way, this ignorance is a good thing because when modern pundits do bother to argue from history, they do so only pragmatically, using the technique of the Ministry of Truth from 1984: to take something out of context or simply to fabricate a historical fact in order to argue a pre-determined opinion. One bad side effect of this ignorance, however, is that most of modern American society believes that our ancestors especially ancient ones were immoral, unethical idiots. If fact, on any given subject of pure rational thought such as morality and ethics, ancient societies were often much more sophisticated, disciplined, and logical in their thoughts than modern ethics and morality that is simply a regurgitation of economic necessity. An example of this is slavery. Ancient societies were well aware of the nature of slavery and contemplated and argued whether it was ethical to have it. The minority of philosophers concluded slavery to be unethical and should be eliminated. The majority, including such supposed greats as Aristotle and Cicero, concluded that it was ethical.


What is still interesting about their contemplation is that they saw and made distinctions that we still do not make today and most likely will never make unless there is a radical change in the nature of our modern technological society. For one, they made a distinction between chattel slavery and wage slavery. Just as ancient Greek philosophers invented the first steam engine during their search for knowledge (the aeolipile also known as a Hero’s engine) but apparently choose or the times were not right to use it to start an industrial revolution, they also seem to have developed a basic concept of capitalism but it went no further. One reason it went no further is that either out of selfishness or from a perverted version of pre-Christian altruism, they saw wage slavery as the greater evil.


According to the ancients, and continuing forward even to some 19th Century supposed moralists, chattel slavery was more ethical than wage slavery because it created a social bond of dependence between slave and master that contributed to maintaining an orderly and strong society. The slave was valuable to the master, valuable as property but valuable no less. There was an economic dependence between the two that created a social bond contributing to social cohesion. Such is not true of the person working solely for wages paid by the master. At any point, the master can decide to stop paying the wages and the workers would be out in the cold with no means to support themselves or their families. Whatever economic bond existed, it was a temporary one. The only social bond created between the wage earner and the master or even between wage earners was one of competition that contributed only to social disorder.


Unfortunately, from a purely cold-blooded economic perspective, this analysis was true. In every economic comparison analysis even from non-American scholars that I have ever seen, the material (clothing, shoes, housing, etc.), physical health, life stability, family stability (either nuclear or extended families), and even education opportunities of chattel slaves when compared to that of urban or rural wage workers was usually better but rarely worse for the chattel slaves than the wage workers. The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglas after several years of experience as a “free man” concluded: “experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery.”


Obviously, what this pure economic analysis misses is chattel slavery’s effect upon the human soul. At least in their misery, the “free” could create independently of any family relationships social bonds among themselves — almost always illegal because the law always acts to protect masters and not either their wage or chattel slaves — that through threat of unified social rebellion would serve to improve their lot in life. Through the ages these social bonds varied from the Roman plebeians’ successful demands for the appointment of “tribunes” (“tribuni plebis”) to control the power of the patrician consuls to medieval and our modern labor unions. Except for possibly the Haitian Revolution whose success can be disputed given its present lot, I know of no similar success by slaves to organize and improve their lot in life either outside of the law or within it. From the slave revolution of Spartacus to our own Civil War, in the absence of assistance from the powers that be, successful social bonding outside of their family was not able to occur.


Is such distinction or benefit to being a wage slave still true in modern technological society?  No. Thanks to technological progress, one can have material wealth as a wage slave in the modern world that was unimaginable to either the chattel or wage slaves of the past but one is less free now to engage in any social bonding to improve the soul of society — or even for personal spiritual worth. The concept of either an extended or nuclear family is rapidly disappearing. At present, the majority of Americans have never been married and 40% of children are born to unwed mothers. It is only a matter of time before the concept of family is reserved as a hobby for the rich. Western religion has surrendered to the secular religion of law — serving only the master — as the standard for love, empathy, and mercy in life. Workers’ unions have disappeared for all practical purposes from the private economy — only the master’s servant government employees least in need of unions given their almost lifetime guarantee of income, job security, and pension benefits have effective unions. The wage worker has no job security nor any place to call “home.” It is only a matter of time before every wage worker is essentially a temporary service employee that randomly and arbitrarily can be hired, fired, transferred, and traded by the corporations paying them wages; who has neither the time, resources, nor social or physical and thus not the mental stability to create with other wage slaves social bonds strong enough to be a threat or to create a threat of a revolt against our modern masters.


So now what? Nothing one can do. As George Orwell in 1984 so accurately described, this is simply our unavoidable future. For the powers that be, power is an end in itself. Unless you become religious believing in a god other than power, the only option is to sit back and enjoy the material wealth that modern technological society provides even to wage slaves. As the saying goes, a rising tide raises all boats. Though relatively speaking in terms of economic wealth, personal self-worth, and freedom, the modern wage slave is probably no better off and may be worse off than our ancestors, we are much better off in personal material wealth. That may be the only progress that life allows for those of us not among the powers that be. The wage slave with the most toys wins!