Why does God hate the Poor: Who are the hated Poor? Part I

I need to step back a moment from the progression of this contemplation to clarify or define in some clear way who are the poor to whom I am referring so in case anyone reads these contemplations we are contemplating the same people. The only way I can make sure we have the same meaning of “the poor” is by exemplifying how I use that word and its usefulness to me. As I tried to clarify in other essays, though it is a good start to define the poor workers simply in terms of material poverty or as wage slaves, this is a very narrow view of reality. Many of the poor in the United States would be considered well-off materially in many other places in the world. Somewhere in the world, on average, every 15 seconds a child dies of preventable diseases including many resulting from malnutrition or contaminated food or water. Furthermore, qualitatively, as every historical study of the issue confirms, measuring relative to the material quantity or economies of their respective times or era, there is little material difference between the lives of workers stuck as wage slaves their whole lives in modern Technological Society and the lives of chattel slaves in past societies. It is still true as it has been true for much of the past millennia that 1% of the world still control approximately 80% of the world’s material wealth; we are all materially better off because the 100% is so much larger. There is still a lot of material and physical poverty in life but this concept of the poor is incomplete.

 

It is easy to start with a material definition of the poor, but it is a mistake to define or connote the poor solely in terms of material or physical poverty.  This type of definition relying completely on material poverty is not my definition nor is it the definition of Western theology when it says that we will always have the poor among us by which they mean both the materially poor and what they consider to be the spiritually poor. It is usually not even the definition used by atheists or other non-religious, at least not for those who have the empathy to go beyond their own delusional will-to-power to declare God dead so that they can replace Him with whatever new god they want to worship — because they lack the courage to rebel and reject God honestly. Good existential writers such as Kierkegaard, Camus, Dostoevsky, Herman Melville, and many other writers include among the poor those destined to have lives of powerless absurdity. Good existential writers are able to empathize with such a state of affairs. However, my concept of the poor is better brought out by considering how bad existential writers describe the lives of those who live in absurdity — bad existential writers such a Frederick Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre and his girlfriend Simone de Beauvoir.

 
Consider the story of Nietzsche and the Turin horse. Supposedly toward the end of his life, Nietzsche was in Turin, Italy when he happened to see the driver of a horse drawn wagon whipping a horse to get it going. Nietzsche was so moved by this scene that he ran to the horse, hugged it around the neck, and started crying. His friends and family members had to physically force him from the horse; he had an emotional breakdown; and he then spent the remainder of his life in his mother’s apartment being cared after by his mother and his sister. The moral of this story according to the loving readers of Nietzsche is to establish what a sensitive person Nietzsche was and thus by implication show the subtlety and sensitivity of his writings and thus the subtlety and sensitivity of his loving readers. Yeah, right; why did not Nietzsche or his loving readers ever ask what happened to the horse and driver? Like Nietzsche, did they go on to spend the rest of their lives cared for by their mother? The movie Turin Horse by the Hungarian director Bela Tarr asks this question and his answer is they went to work and continued to work the rest of their lives. The driver and the workers are the poor of my question. Nietzsche and his loving ethically superior Dorian Gray worshipers are the rich.

 
Technological Society has replaced the horse by mechanical devices and thus has saved millions of horses from living a life of struggle serving humanity by denying them life since we no longer need horses. However, Technological Society did not do the same for the wagon driver; they are now Uber drivers and the struggle of life and class struggle continues as it must for history to continue.

 
Sartre in his Being and Nothingness describes inauthentic and authentic living as a dialectic of freedom. As an example of inauthentic or bad faith living, he describes a waiter who is “play acting” at being a waiter. He is not complaining the waiter is being too patronizing, phony, or fake such as being overly polite and flattering to get tips but is actually complaining that the waiter is being too good at being a waiter. According to Sartre, being a waiter is just a social construct. It is not really what anyone really is and one should not see their self-identity or identify as being a waiter. According to Sartre, identifying oneself as being a good waiter is an means to deny one’s freedom; it is a means to replace authentic self-identity with a social construct because one is afraid of the freedom to be whatever they want to be. Thus, finding meaning in life as a really good waiter is an inauthentic life.

 
For Sartre and for many of his existential followers, the waiter is denying his freedom by trying to become a social construct. What Sartre is actually exemplifying — as did his girlfriend Beauvoir — is “play acting” at being a philosopher. If the waiter had the luxury to do so, the waiter most likely would live authentically writing pretend philosophy books while sitting in cafes drinking wine with his other writer friends and his girlfriend ridiculing those who are trying to do their job of serving them as best they can. Problem is the waiter does not have that option, he must work for a living and see meaning in that work. The waiter is the poor; Sartre, his girlfriend, and their worshipers are God’s beloved.

 
As I contemplated in other essays, as Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument brings out, there really is no such thing as self-identity defined by a private language of an individual person. Language is a social construct and thus once we leave areas of pragmatical truth such as science, all descriptions are social descriptions not private ones. The poor and the workers who are the poor in my question do not have a choice of “self-identity”; they are what society says they are. They can fight against their social identity and try to change it but it is a fight they will lose and must lose because they do not control the strategy, tactics, armament, or the field of battle. Society and those who rule it control those and must. The Powers are those who have the power to control what ought to be and what ought to be said about what ought to be. Sartre and others like him have the power to define the waiter as inauthentic, play acting, or whatever normative description they have the power to make; the waiter is stuck with what life gave him. The Powers construct their own social identity and then like Sartre look upon hoi polloi around them as cowards who lack the courage to live authentically after having defined what it means to live authentically.

 
Thanks to the material progress provided by science and technology, we are likely to reach a point in the foreseeable future where material and physical poverty will not exist. Everyone will have the basics necessary for materially and physically having a healthy individual life and perhaps with only robots instead of other humans as servants. This future will result from the past suffering of billions of dead souls — approximately 15 souls for each one of us presently living. Is such future happiness worth the price paid by those dead souls? As Camus and Dostoevsky specifically write, who would dare to assert that eternal happiness can compensate for a single moment of human suffering? The same question can be posed for human happiness in this life. These writers used the example of suffering babies and children and even of purely innocent beasts of burden such as donkeys, mules, and horses who from birth are destined to live lives of struggle for their human masters and then die a lonely death as the lonely animals they are. Dostoevsky’s description of a man beating a horse to death in Crime and Punishment and of the hunting dogs killing a child in his book The Brothers Karamazov are examples that are hard to forget. If these books are too long, try the short stories of George Orwell such A Hanging, Shooting an Elephant, and Makaresh dealing with real-life events that he witnessed. These fictions and stories pale in comparison to real-life tragedy such as the siege of Stalingrad. The Powers of this future will accept happiness based on such a price. More likely, just as social justice warriors do now, they will accept their happiness not upon unity with the past or with a sense of loyalty to their fifteen souls but upon a Dorian Gray sense of moral superiority condemning the past as if it was made up of human idiots and assuming they could have done much better.

 
Are the Powers-that-be willing to accept the massacre of innocents as the price to pay for their eternal happiness? Yes, they are. That is why they are the Powers-that-be. The Powers build their happiness upon the past even when condemning the past so as to control the future: to control what ought to be to make a world in their image. The poor are those that cannot accept such a deal or are not allowed to do so or not even given the choice to do so.

 
Do not get me wrong. I am not ridiculing such a future. Personally, the so-called dystopia of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is a better world than we have now and better than most of the world that I have seen during my life. Given a choice between being materially rich but spiritually poor or being materially poor but spiritually rich, in my experience most people that have known physical poverty would choose being physically rich over spiritual richness. The reality of life is that money can buy love and happiness both in this life and in the next, but on its own love will only get you hate as the love/hate coin flips. However, this brave new world of the future for which my ancestors and I have fought and struggled to achieve, is it really worth what it took to get there? Does not seem worth it right now. The price for ending physical and material poverty seems to be workers who have lost the will to fight and are viewed as inauthentic waiters by those who also lost the will to fight but do not need to fight.

 
This is the substance of the problem and the nature of the definition of being poor and hated by God. God so hates the poor that the rules of the card game are set so that either the poor must endure the absurd meaninglessness of no physical and material power over their lives or endure the meaninglessness of a lack of a will to power for their lives while the chosen few Powers-that-be enjoy both material and normative power not only over their lives but over the lives of the poor. For most of humanity, it is either material poverty or spiritual poverty. It is one or the other. This is free will? This is worse than no choice at all. In the future, the poor will be defined not by material poverty but by a poverty of will; it will still be poverty.

 
God can do whatever He wants. She is doing it. So why does it bother me? Is it really envy that is my problem as the Bible says in the Parable of the Workers? Is it what Nietzsche called resentment: the herd’s envy of their betters? Should I just accept my fate in life? This is the final issue that I must face in defining and clarifying who are the poor in my question of why does God hate the poor.

 

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.

To Be An Ethical Person Or To Be A Good Person, That Is The Question: Part I

Rules of ethics as with calls for ethics, preaching about a need for ethics, and committees on ethics are omnipresent. Everyone who is anyone from the extreme political right to the extreme political left seems only to agree on one thing: ethics is good. Just for that reason, it is something of which the workers and powerless of the world should be suspect. If those who rule over us agree on one thing that one thing must not be good for the ruled. Theoretically: what is “ethics” that everyone seems to worship and admire it; is it any different from law; is being an ethical person the same as being morally good? Practically: why is it that throughout the history of injustice and evil including racism, ethics as with the law is almost always on the wrong side, and yet in any present ethics as with the law, both always claim to be on the right side of history?

 

In practice, “ethics” for philosophy including its subset theology describes a set of rational principles that are supposed to be universal to all concepts of individual morality: that is to all concepts by which individuals define good or evil. Outside of philosophy and Christian Theology, no one especially no one in politics, academia, business, or in any field outside philosophy or theology defines “ethics” in such a way. This is true for one simple reason often called Hume’s Law or Hume’s Guillotine named after the philosopher David Hume stating: one can play as many wordgames as one wants, but no matter how you change your syntax or semantics, there is no way to deduce nor induce from descriptive statements of “is” to conclusions expressing a new relation of a normative, evaluative, or perspective “ought”. Thus, normative statements of what one ought to do cannot be rationally derived from what is: ethics is not rational. This is the foundation problem of all philosophical and Christian theological contemplation on ethics that are beyond the subject matter of this blog. In dealing with this problem, all philosophers and Christian theologians analytically contemplating it have reached at least one set of rational principles that in the end may be all there is to ethics: 1) we must apply Ockham’s Razor to ethics in that rules of ethics must be as simple and as few as necessary to reflect morality given the multiple of possible individual moralities; 2) execution upon any principles of ethics is by necessity tempered by the emotion of empathy in which the will recognizes the existence of struggles between individual moralities and acts on this struggle with the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and courage.

 

However, popular “ethics” by all powers from the left to the right ignores the substance and essense of Hume’s Law in their omnipresent pontificating on ethics. Instead, for them the word “ethics” describes codes of written conduct formally put forward by any socially acceptable group. In this descriptive use, it is dogma never to be questioned that ethics is unquestionably rational and it is dogma that any violation of their rationality must be punished untempered by any emotion — in fact, emotive considerations in execution of a group’s ethics would be in itself unethical. In popular ethics, Ockham’s Razor is ignored: the more rules of ethics there are, it is dogma that the better the rules of ethics must be. The final attribute of popular ethics is its dogma that it is not dogmatic.

 

For the powerless workers of the world, popular ethics clearly creates a problem in principle and eventually in their execution in practice. Ethics is founded upon dishonest dogmatic belief. This dishonesty compounds itself as it is formalized into rules and then enforced. Popular ethics in practice never admits to its inherent intellectual dishonesty but instead does all it can to hide it, and it is unchecked by reality consisting of procedures that would act as a check on its inherent dishonesty or pragmatic results that can somehow be tested — regardless of whether or not the tests can result in falsification. For example, all formalized codes of conduct by socially acceptable groups are internally formalized by socially acceptable members of the group. What happens is that a dozen or so socially acceptable members of a group chosen by an even smaller number of the powers of a group get together and decide the “ethics” that will then be enforced upon thousands to hundreds of thousands or millions of members of the group with direct effect upon millions if not billions of that group’s customers, clients, patients, or whatever none of whom had any say in the ethics being enforced upon them. This form of governance is so unique to modern technological society that there appears to be no name for it. I would call it a technocracy except that the technicians formalizing the rules are not technical experts on ethics; based on their social status, they are simply chosen by the powers to formalize rules for them. In fact, as contemplated by www.sandpebblespodcast.com, this technique can be used to define the powers-that-be: those few who can enforce irrational conclusions as to what ‘ought-to-be’ upon others — i.e., Orwell’s Inner Party and their servant members of the Outer Party.

 

The supposed practical intend of codifying rules as “ethics” is to protect the weak from the strong. A wordgame in which a small group of socially accepted humans appointed by an even smaller group of powerful humans within a socially acceptable group is expected to create rules to protect the weak from themselves and the powers that appointed them is a game proving the game’s developers to be completely ignorant of human and natural history and of human nature. As with the law, as contemplated in  www.knightsofthermopylaeinnofcourt.com, such a game’s result consisting of the wordgame that is “ethics” is always the exact opposite: protecting the strong from the weak grouping together and overpowering them. As the Romans used to say after putting down the Spartacus slave rebellion, even a pack of dogs can kill a man if there are enough of them.

 

Furthermore, there is never any attempt to see if the supposed intended result of protecting the powerless from the powerful is ever achieved. In fact, such pragmatic analysis of popular ethics is — in accordance with and as practical proof of Hume’s Law — not only avoided but often outright condemned as an evil. For example, if a politician honestly states they will sell a political appointment or a political position to the highest donor, it is unethical and even criminal regardless if they actually do it — the speech is enough for execution of loss of livelihood and imprisonment (i.e., former governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich). However, if a politician actually does give a political appointment to the highest donor or legislate the highest donor’s political needs it is ethical and legal as long as the politician keeps their reasoning to themselves and does not admit verbally that both were bought and sold (i.e., every politician in the history of the world). From the pragmatic perspective of the voter, especially in a society that supposedly worships free speech, how is this ethics forcing politicians to hide their dishonesty in anyway a moral good? It is not.

 

This type of analysis can be applied to any popular form of ethics. I am not engaged in this analysis to try to create an idiocracy. Our modern technological world is so very complicated that it is easy to forget the basic premises of human thought that have made us successful so far in beating the natural world’s will to kill us. For example, mathematics is incredibly complicated, yet all of its incredibly convoluted, rationally challenging complexity begins with one simple operation: addition. If you do not understand that 2 + 2 = 4, all of mathematics is worthless farce. Before we can go on to questions of whether ethics or morality is any different from law or whether being an ethical person is the same as being morally good, one must accept that “freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows” — Orwell’s 1984.

“White No More” / Part VII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“White No More” / Part IV

According to the supposed non-racists Ta-Nehisi Coates and his many worshipers who wanted Dolezal unemployed, racism and whatever language it creates are creations by racist ‘white’ people through their white supremacy view of the world. The two-way street of racist language is not true of their supposedly non-racist language; they claim to see reality as it really is not as their words make it out to be as racists do. Coates is considered a genius for describing the situation as follows: “race is the child of racism, not the father.” By “race” and “racism”, he is not referring to the use of those words in several millennia of different applications that include tribal, religious, ethnic, national, and many other differences but only as used in his self-centered narrow view of the world consisting of “race” and “racism” based on skin color. According to this line of thought, we will never be able to eliminate the discrimination and oppression of physically perceived black bodies by physically perceived white bodies because of the ongoing legacy of slavery and of a white supremacy view of history, the present, and the future. Thus, their argument is that being ‘black’ is by definition a skin color but also an oppressed ‘race’ forced to accept racism and race as a fact of life. If “race” truly “is the child of racism, not the father”, cannot the father die and we would still have the son that is “race”? This seems to be the implication and is how his thought plays out in practice to create new school racism.

 
So, for supposed non-racists such as Coates just as for Dolezal and racists alike, being black connotes both a sense experience skin color and also a cultural and social identity that is called being ‘black’. Coates further complains that the “black bodies” created by racism are in need of protection from those who call themselves “white”; of whites casting of him and his “people” into a black “race” that knowingly glance at each other at airports and know they share a special bond; and of the reality, unity, and language of his black “people” and “tribe”. Unlike racists though, for supposed non-racist Coates and his worshipers this ‘race’ identity is defined not solely by skin color but by skin color combined with oppression, slavery, and discrimination by whites based on black skin color. This is why he need not get into issues of mixed heritage; his focus is completely self-centered into a simple white and black distinction: white is bad; black is good.

 
The logic is as follows: white people by their white supremacy oppression and discrimination of black bodies, especially through slavery, created and create anew every day “black bodies”, and a black “people”, “tribe”, or “race” that are now in need of protection from this oppression and discrimination by white people, therefore white people such as Dolezal should not be allowed to pretend they are ‘black’. If they do, the only proper connotation for them is a derogatory ‘wigger’ or ‘putting on black face’ because such pretension is just more oppression — taking the good created by the struggle of being ‘black’ and making it ‘white’.

 
Actually, this logic makes sense from a defeatist perspective. Since their premise is that omnipresent white supremacy physically, socially, and culturally makes “black” inferior and thus American culture and society will treat ‘black bodies’ unjustly as an inferior ‘race’ of black bodies, Coates and his worshipers conclude they must accept they are “black bodies” of a black “people”, “tribe”, or “race” and as a defense mechanism exclude anyone from being one of them who are not “black bodies” in a black “people”, “tribe”, or “race”. If they do not watch out for each other, no one will is a valid defense used by religions, ethnicities, tribes, nations, and so forth throughout history and often is the mechanism used to create or empower the identity of the ethnicity, society, culture, and so forth. Does it work the other way with their version of ‘race’? Since according to Coates and his worshipers we live in a world of white supremacy in which white people are by definition the oppressors of blacks, are black bodies unable to call themselves white?

 
For example, President Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice has led a life of prestige, privilege, and power among the powers-that-be. She was born in Washington, D.C., of two black parents consisting of a Cornell University economics professor who was also the second black governor of the Federal Reserve System and an education policy scholar. She is a three-sport athlete, student council president, and valedictorian from National Cathedral School in Washington, D.C., an upper class private girls’ day school, and is a graduate of Stanford University and New College, Oxford. She served on the staff of the National Security Council and served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during President Bill Clinton’s second term and as UN ambassador. She is married to a white guy ABC television producer. She has two kids. Based on culture and social relations, to any working class kid such as myself she appears to be modern upper class and a very powerful member of our modern ruling class intelligentsia who would screw me and give the orders to kill me and my entire family (doubt if she would do the killing herself since new school powers need not bloody their hands with the actual killing) if need be to keep her family, friends, and other members of her 1984 Orwellian Inner and Outer Party in power.

 
Since by definition she is one of white society’s oppressors of black people, can I call Susan Rice a white woman? Can I call her a white woman who happens to be black (as I usually do)? No, this would be racist because she is physically black and calling her white implies that being a ruling class oppressor is acting white which is racist though true according to Coates. What if she went to “Black No More” and changed to a white skin color? Is she still black? According to Coates and his worshipers’ logic, the answer is yes because she was born black and thus shares in the legacy of oppression, slavery, and discrimination that is being born ‘black’.

 
Thus, the logic of Coates and his worshipers works both ways: under no circumstances can a white be black nor a black be white. Our technology of “White No More” and “Black No More” thus would do nothing to solve this problem. Even if skin color stopped being a genetic marker fixed at birth and became just a fashion choice and thus we could eliminate the concept of skin color ‘race’ and associated racism entirely to replace it with an -ism against persons who choose black as the fashion choice of skin color, all of this would still be racist. Being ‘black’ is a race, people, or tribe created not by skin color but by racism; it is a legacy of racism and slavery that is a birthright to all who are black. Any attempt by whites to be ‘black’ hijacks that legacy and is an attempt to hide it and its responsibilities (such as reparations) and is racist.

 
In the fabric of language used by the supposed non-racists who wanted Dolezal to lose her job, by Coates, and by his worshipers, just as with the language fabric of racists, the initial fabric tread or stitching that associated being black with skin color at some point has become disassociated from skin color. For Coates and his worshipers, ‘black’ now means a legacy of oppression, slavery, and discrimination because of black skin color. It is a legacy handed down from black generation to black generation as a genetic birthright regardless of the circumstances of the birth, the actual skin color, or of the life circumstances of the child: thus we have new school racism. This change in language tread and stitching is a substantive and essential change in the use of the words ‘race’ and ‘racism’. If “race” truly “is the child of racism, not the father”, the father can die and we would still have the son — regardless of technology. Having race around allows for it to become a racist father itself of new school racism as contemplated in some of my prior blogs dealing with new school racism.

 
Why such a defeatist view of life? Racist whites put persons with black skin color into an unjust black race so they must accept and continue being in an unjust black race? Historically, when such a defense mechanism is accepted, it is done either by the powers to keep a group in their place or as a smokescreen for hidden intentions for power by the ambitious. Which is it for Coates and his worshipers? For this contemplation to progress in anyway, we must forget the polemics and deal with a further contemplation of the nature of language and its meaning: its usefulness. Coates is definitely a genius poet as poetry is defined by the philosopher Nietzsche: “the art of creating ripples in shallow water to give the impression they are deep.” Such genius serves only the selfish interests of the poet and to confuse and to obscure the actual meanings or usefulness of words.

“White No More” / Part III

I am using a hypothetical scenario on whether technology will provide the solution to racism, either real or imagined, to get a better understanding of human nature and the present nature of racism, both old school and new school racism. Once the cosmetic surgery or genetic engineering of a “White No More” or “Black No More” becomes widespread allowing skin color to be just another fashion decision for adults and a parental choice of attributes for babies, people will be whatever skin color they want and therefore racism should disappear. After all, once there is no such thing as genetically decided permanent skin color anymore, people will no longer be able to place anyone in any white or black race category based on sense experience skin color. Or will they? The logic seems simple enough but the events of Rachel Dolezal show it may not be that easy. It is easy enough to determine why racists would want her to lose her job, but why supposed non-racists wanted her — a single mother with two kids to support with one of those kids the son of a black ex-husband and thus definitely black by political correctness standards — unemployed is confusing and difficult to grasp.

 
To a racist living the delusion of a genetically socially and culturally superior white race and an inferior black race, Dolezal was a fraud and a traitor to her true superior white color by pretending to be an inferior black; thus, she should be punished by the loss of her job. A racist might also say that as a fraud and traitor, she deserves to live and work with the inferior black race and thus let this loser keep her job; essentially expel her from the ‘white’ race. Either way, the reasoning is based on their delusion of white supremacy and black inferiority. To a racist, Dolezal’s qualifications, competency, education, and job performance would be irrelevant to deciding her fate, the only material issues are skin color and the appropriate punishment for her denial of her “true” skin color that is physically associated with the superior attributes of a white race.

 
Our predicted technology would be able to eliminate this old school racism because there will be no “true” skin color to betray nor to misrepresent and thus no superior or inferior attributes to be associated with any particular skin color. Once being white or black is not a genetic attribute firmly established at conception, a racist will eventually lose the ability to make racist associations and until then will lose the ability to do anything about any racist associations they do make because they will not know who is truly white or black by their or their relatives’ physical appearance. Saying a person is black and therefore inferior so that one can discriminate against or oppress that person because the person is full, ½, 1/4, 1/8, or whatever ‘black’ is useless if the full, ½, 1/4, 1/8, or whatever ‘black’ may in fact all be white and the same is true of the converse. In order to maintain their racist language fabric in this new technological reality, racists would actually have to establish a correlation at the DNA/genetic level between skin color genes and whatever physical, mental, social, or cultural attributes they consider superior or inferior. This is logically and empirically impossible. The best they would be able to do would be to discriminate against and oppress people who choose to have black skin and thus the issue of whether they are full, ½, 1/4, 1/8, or whatever black is irrelevant, the only relevant fact would be their fashion choice of skin color. There would be no white or black ‘race’ but only sense experience of white or back skin — which is the situation we want.

 
This latter situation is substantively not racism but a new type of -ism. It is not discrimination and oppression of persons who are of a ‘black’ race but of persons who choose to wear a certain fashion or cosmetic trend. It would be the same as discriminating against persons who have breast enhancement, nose jobs, wear bow ties, wear white after Labor Day, or any of the infinite number of ways people discriminate against each other because they do not like each other or view each other as inferior to them. It would not be an issue of a superior ‘white’ race and an inferior ‘black’ race, but simply of a superior or inferior fashion style.

 
A non-racist would also consider Dolezal a fraud but not a traitor since supposedly to them there really is no ‘race’ to betray. As far as they are concerned, she is a physically white person pretending to be a physically black person in the same way that a sighted person would be a fraud pretending to be blind or a physically healthy person pretending to be disabled in order to get handicap parking stickers would be a fraud — or the other way around. To a supposed non-racist, the supposed important fact is that she lied about her skin color or pretended to be black when she is not; she was a wigger, which is a bad thing. Thus a non-racist would conclude Dolezal deserves to lose her job for being a fraud regardless of her qualifications, competency, education, and job performance in the same way that any employee lying to their employer should lose their job based on fraud — regardless of whether or not she really believes or identifies with being black. To a supposed non-racist, her identification as black is simply a sign of mental illness, such as a hypochondriac who is not ill always believing she is ill only in her case she did not believe in an illness but a benefit as she saw it.

 
In the latter case of supposed non-racist reasoning, where supposedly there is no racism, our technology should at least be able to keep Dolezal employed at the NAACP, right? Assume she goes to “White No More”, views their choice of skin colors from Plessy Black (in honor of the octoroon from Plessy v. Ferguson who could pass as white) to Zulu Black (their darkest available color), and she chooses Zulu Black. She then does the surgery/genetic engineering at her own expense and is now of Zulu Black skin color. She can now honestly apply for employment at the NAACP, tell them she is black since they seem to care, and honestly get employment as a black person, right?

 
That should be the case based on the supposed non-racist logic for throwing her out into the street, but it does not seem to be the case. Such a color change would be called “putting on black face” and is considered more racist that being a wigger. This is where I lose the logic of the fraud basis for making her lose her employment. If someone was only pretending to be blind but is then blinded, they are no longer pretending, they are blind? What is different about the supposed non-racist definition for supposedly nonexistent ‘race’ and its relation to the sense experience of skin color that does not allow for a person of physical white skin to become a person of physically black skin — or the other way — without being called racist?

“White No More” / Part II

The below diagram is taken from one of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s contemplations on the nature of language and is called a duck-rabbit (it is covered in more detail at www.sandpebblespodcast.com):

duck_rabbit

If you have any life experience with ducks and the word ‘duck’, when I tell you the word “duck” while you view the above diagram, you should see a duck. If you have any life experience with rabbits and the word ‘rabbit’, when I tell you the word “rabbit” while you look at the diagram, you should see a rabbit. What someone who has had no experience with ducks or rabbits would see in the above diagram is up for grabs. This diagram and similar diagrams and contemplations cannot be ignored as dealing with “optical illusions” otherwise all of reality should be ignored as optical illusions since you have no way of telling when you are in the position of someone whose limited sense experience sees neither a duck nor a rabbit or only one but not the other. How do you know there is not another animal in the above diagram that you do not see because you have no word for it?

 
The point of this diagram and the associated philosophy is to establish that once the human mind is sophisticated enough to create and think with rational symbols such as words, the thinking is a two-way street between sense experience and words. Reasoning consists of a “fabric of language” as the philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine beautifully described it. At the exterior is the sense experience that acts as the starting threads of our language but almost instantaneously the threads are intertwined with words describing that sense experience; some or all other experiences and words; and the relationships between some or all other experiences and words so that almost instantaneously it becomes difficult and perhaps impossible to separate the words from the sense experience. As empiricists in a scientific age, we must assume that all of us have the same sense experience for the above diagram and its reality does not change as different individuals view it, but such is not true of the words used to describe it. Eventually, words become their own reality and create sense experience that seems to be there and to be as true as the initial sense experience that started the threading. The essential job of modern Western philosophy is to point out when we are confusing or making the reality of words into something more real than the reality of reality. As Quine beautifully and concisely stated in his essay The Two Dogmas of Empiricism:

The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges.

 

It is because of the above problem that science uses the scientific method to become pragmatic and differentiate itself from non-science or pseudo-science. If you want to get into these issues in more detail, I suggest any book by the philosopher Norwood Russell Hanson or starting with the philosophy of language and science podcasts at www.sandpebblespodcast.com.

 
Even through just a casual inspection of the language of racism, we can see the above two-way street at work. Somewhere in human history, there may be a thread of the fabric of racist language in which white skinned people for the first time met black skinned people and for the first time used the word ‘race’ as a differentiation between white-skinned and black-skinned bodies. Whenever that first thread stitching occurred, it is now lost among millions of other threads in modern language and perhaps was removed and replaced with another thread and is gone. This is evident even in the simplest uses of the words ‘race’ and ‘racism’.

 
For example, the Plaintiff Plessy in the post Civil War 19th Century Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson that established the separate but equal doctrine of Jim Crow laws was an octoroon, he was only 1/8 black by birth and could have easily passed and did pass as white — he could have and did ride in the front of the train in the segregated Old South any time he wanted. That is why he was chosen as the Plaintiff for that case. The Plaintiff Counsel were trying to show how irrational the concept of race was and that therefore how irrational and thus unconstitutional legally enforced segregation must be. For reasons discussed in my book The Law Illusion, the brilliant Injustices of the Supremes disagreed. Even before the 19th Century, the word ‘race’ for racists had uses way beyond just for reference to someone having ‘black’ skin. If Plessy was ‘black’ because one of his eight parents/grandparents was black, what about if he was 1/16 black? How far back does or should a racist go to define race? It is evident that for racists, words such as ‘race’, ‘racist’, and ‘black’ mean much more than skin color. They are used to create a word reality of social and cultural relations much of which has little if any relation to the actual reality of human social and cultural relations.

 
How this word reality becomes more powerful than reality and in fact contorts reality to fit the words is evident in the obsession by Nazi jurisprudence and legal culture to differentiate their Aryan Herrenvolk or master race of the Volksgemeinschaft or “people’s community” from their slave Non-Aryan races such as Jews, Romani, Slavs, Poles, Serbs, Blacks, and so forth. So, for example, some in the Nazi legal culture argued one was Jewish if one was only 1/16 Jewish blood. Eventually, the criterion for being Jewish was set at having at least three Jewish grandparents; two or one rendered a person a Mischling leaving open the possibility of your extermination to the discretion, mercy, and wisdom of the judiciary — you can read in history the results of this reliance. These arbitrary standards became law in the same way anything becomes law: through the arbitrary and random ethics or will for power decisions of a bunch of bureaucrats.

 
How about our modern supposedly non-racist politically correct opponents of racism, those that condemned Dolezal for using ‘white’ to mean only a “biological identity thrust upon her” that she can change as she wants thus resulting in the loss of her livelihood? How do they use words such as ‘race’, ‘racism’, and ‘black’? Are they a two-way street for them? It appears they are schizophrenic on this issue as I will contemplate next.