Lilies of the Field

Why are you anxious about clothing?
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow.
They don’t toil, neither do they spin.

So says the bible. This saying along with the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard long ago convinced me that God hates the poor.

 
Before and during the Big Dig Project in Boston, there were two lilies in particular I remember. One was this old, twisted, dirty, broken, pear tree growing in some broken up gravel in a parking lot crevice between a fence and a concrete support left over from something but I never knew what. The other was some kind of yellow flower growing in a crack in the construction barriers between the northbound and southbound lanes of Interstate 93 that was an elevated highway at that time.

 
The pear tree had been growing in that same spot for so long that part of the parking lot fence was encased in its bark. It never grew to more than six or seven feet talk. Its bark was wrinkled with cuts and ridges, there was no smooth part anywhere on it. It probably tried to grow higher but could never make it, someone or something would always wind up breaking any branch that got too far from the trunk. I watched it for about four to five years come to life every Spring, put out skinny green leaves, and then some sad excuses for white blossoms. Then at some point in late Summer, it put out a small handful of the smallest yellow and black pears that I had ever seen. I had no idea how long it had been growing there. Given the fence encased in its bark, it must have been quite awhile. No one watered it, no one fertilized it, no one took care of it, and no one cared for it. Most definitely, no one talked to it and it never had a companion. Yet, regardless of Summer heat, Winter cold, flood, or drought, it lived. Almost every workday I saw it as I walked by; it seem to me to be one of the most beautiful of lilies. One night, the Big Dig decided to rip up the parking lot. Next day, I went to work and it was gone. Gone without a trace, as if it never had existed.

 
In crossing over Interstate 93 via a walkway that existed at one time, one year in the Spring I saw this big yellow flower growing in a crack next to one of the highway’s north-south lane barriers. Traffic on one side was traveling six inches to a foot away 24/7 at 65 mph on average during non rush hour. During rush-hour, I would guess thousands of cars crawled by it every hour. It was a big bright flower, I could see it clearly a good 50 – 60 feet away, but I never knew what kind it was. No one watered it, no one fertilized it, no one took care of it, and no one cared for it. Yet, regardless of the Summer heat and the Summer drought of that year in which it barely rained in July and August, it lived growing in concrete. Every workday I saw it live its solitary life either from my office window or walking by on the walkway; it also seem to me to one of the most beautiful of lilies of that Summer. One night in late Summer, the Big Dig closed that section of highway and ripped up the barriers during the night. Next morning, I went to work and it was gone without a trace, as if it never existed.

 

This is how God takes care of his lilies of the field. More accurately, this is how His lilies take care of themselves in spite of having Him as caretaker.

 

In the area where my beloved pear tree and highway flower once grew, there now are some gardens of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway maintained by the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy. These Greenway gardens contain a wide variety of all types of flowers, including so-called “wild flowers”, in carefully manicured plots that are well maintained, well watered (usually with a sprinkler system), well fertilized, and above all maintained by design in an organic and “natural state”. Humanity’s “lilies of the field” consisting of idle rich Boston philanthropists and their chosen government agents, artists, and humanists who make up the Conservancy would not allow their wage workers to maintain their gardens in any other way. Often, the Conservancy has meetings in the gardens in which they discuss the beauty of the world they have created in their image to which they invite visiting “artists” whose “art” is a further topic of discussion. One year, artist Janet Echelman at a six-figure cost hung a big multicolored net between buildings above a portion of the Greenway gardens so that the Conservancy’s gods and lilies of the field could look up at it and experience the beauty of her art as if it were a sail moving in the wind — like the sails moving around for free in Boston Harbor just a couple of hundred feet away. The purpose of this expensive art was so that these gods and their lilies of the field while in their gardens could look up to their heaven and feel how exceptional they were for being able to appreciate such art instead of thinking it to be a complete waste of their trust fund money and of tax dollars as most hoi polloi would think.

 
Well, they can all go fuck themselves. Individually or in combination, the pear tree and highway flower in their struggles for life whether in concrete or in the farce called the natural world were more beautiful and have given me a collection of more beautiful and inspiring memories that are a further basis for both philosophical and pragmatic thought than anything the Conservancy, its demigods or lilies of the fields, or their self-centered delusion called art have ever done or will do.

 
On this presidential inauguration date, a few will celebrate their notoriety in history gained at the expense of millions of forever unknown souls. Most workers once they have some time to contemplate after work celebrate only “meet the new boss same as the old boss” instead of being followers who cry for or worship their old or new leaders. In memory of my parking lot pear tree and my highway yellow flower and the billions of God made not demigod made lilies of the field who have made this world and hopefully will make the future once they renew their will to power and fight the powers-that-be, I publish one of the few citations from a President’s inauguration speech that are worth knowing and repeating:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt

“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 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.

Diversity Past and Future / Part I

The recent maiden speech by Australian Member of Parliament Linda Burney highlights the many inconsistencies and hypocrisies associated with the politically correct “diversity” movement omnipresent throughout Western Civilization at present. “Diversity” is marketed by the powers as meaning diversity of thought and ideas. In practice, “diversity” means the powers will accept you regardless of ethnicity, race, skin-color, sexual orientation, or whatever as long as you think and act like the rich and powerful people act or expect you to act. As discussed earlier, one reason we will always have classism is because once one makes it into a position of power, you think and act like the powers not like the powerless you left behind. The only real value of politically correct diversity is that it proves equality across all kinds of people by showing that people of any ethnicity, race, skin-color, sexual orientation, or whatever can all be equally lacking in creative and original substantive thought, equally lacking in historical knowledge and empathy, and equally motivated by a will for power as any other. How about real diversity of ideas and thought among the powers or even among working people living as one community, is that even possible?

 
MP Burney is lauded by the powers in the media and the internet as the first Australian indigenous or Aboriginal female to be elected to the Australian House of Representatives. So, in a world full of threats to whatever personal freedom there is, does she stand up in her maiden speech with words of gratitude to the long miserable history that got Western Civilization to a point in which there is at least some form of “houses of representatives” in all its nations; where small pox and other major killers of the past have been eliminated; where 80% of its people are literate and rising (instead of 80% illiterate as they were just a century ago); that has brought the world the scientific era; that is trying at least, perhaps unsuccessfully, but trying at least, to adopt the Christian Beatitudes into secular forms of government; and all sorts of other quantifiable improvements in life? No, she walks into Parliament with some other Aboriginals wearing kangaroo skin cloaks (where is PETA in these situations?) featuring their clan totems and personal totems stating “these lands are, always were, and always will be Aboriginal land” singing in their native language passed down through oral tradition — because Australian Aborigines never created a written language despite having 10,000 years to come up with one. This is the usual propaganda that duplicates the propaganda spit out by some present Americans who call themselves “Native American” though to a refugee emigrant such as myself they are no different from any other American born in the United States I have met.

 
According to all up-to-date historians and anthropologists that have studied Aboriginal way of life including eyewitness accounts from the 1830’s of orphan children and escaped convicts living for 20-30 years with the Aboriginals, they were a hunter-gather culture that had all of the mayhem, violence, and war of modern culture without any of the amenities or virtues of modern culture. Prior to Westerners arriving, Australia had about 300,000 hunter-gatherer Aboriginals living there separated into approximately 400-700 regional groups averaging about 500-600 in each group. There is no way to tell which of these groups were the “original” inhabitants of Australia, if any were, because there were multiple waves of immigration with each wave conquering or assimilating with whatever people were there before them. All of this is substantively and essentially true of so-called Native Americans.

 
As with Native Americans, there were constant cycles of plenty and famine. There was constant warfare among the groups for food, land, power, and for women. They had chattel slavery. In “Aboriginal land”, at puberty women became property, valuable property, but still property. They practiced infanticide especially of female babies in an attempt to control the cycles of feast and famine (The Aztecs in the Americas did not stop at infanticide, human sacrifice of all ages was their contribution to Native American culture.) Despite this, by the male age of maturity of 18 – 21 years, as was true of all societies until very recently and still true in most by age 25, the percentage of women in the groups outnumbered the men because so many men died hunting, working, in war, in accidents, and by homicides. Despite this slight surplus of women at maturity, there was still a shortage of wives because the more powerful males practiced polygamy with as many as ten wives. So, there were still raids by men on other groups to get wives that of course created a shortage there thereby resulting in other raids on other tribes. In some family groups, the homicide death rates including war casualties for mature Aboriginal (and also Native American) males, though small in number because the groups were small, was 20% of their population. This percentage of homicide/war deaths was the total for internal wars within family groups and external wars with other family groups before Westerners arrived. Even in our bloodiest war, the Civil War, we only hit 2% of the male population. In World War II, the only nation to come close to a 20% casualty rate was Poland, even Germany and Russia hovered around 10%. In World War I, the only nation to go above 10% was Serbia which hit the jackpot at 27%.

 
Is this the “Aboriginal land” that is the basis of MP Burney’s cultural pride? These are the people she wants now to own the land so she can go back to being valuable property over which men kill and start wars? These good-ole-days of Aboriginal culture were forcibly stopped by British and Australian imperialism. Is she talking about the world of this enforced peace between the family groups so they could all unite as “Aboriginals” and start complaining? Was this really a bad thing? Sure, it could have been handled better and more humanely than it was, but in order to have a humane assimilation between cultures, both sides must admit the need for assimilation. This hardly ever occurs in history. The powers-that-be of the Aboriginals with their ten wives saw no need to assimilate and did not care whom they sacrificed to maintain their power just as the Australian powers-that-be as always did not care about hoi polloi fighting among themselves despite pretending otherwise, and thus we have the misery that is history.

 
There was no genocide of Aboriginals just as there was no planned genocide of any Indians in the United States nor of any New World natives. Diseases such as small pox, measles, and flu brought by Westerners killed 90-95% of those dying when the cultures collided just as these diseases killed hundreds of millions more Westerners but disease was not intentionally brought to the New World — Mother Nature killed them not Westerners nor Western Culture. Since there was no agreed upon method of assimilation, it occurred the miserable old school way according to the demigod of evolution: those who could adapt did, those who could not adapt lived their lives and died out.

 
The point is to respect the dead by learning from their misery in order to build a better future, not by building false pride upon a miserable past. A delusional view of history does not respect the dead’s sacrifice. It is mocking it.

 
My Slavic ancestors are the reason we have the word “slave”. They suffered a millennium of slavery, first by the Western and Eastern Roman Empires and all the tribal migrations within them and then by the Islamic Empires. The World Wars and their aftermath did not improve their lives much until very recently and the Balkanization of Slavic culture by centuries old grudges is why we have the word “Balkanize” and the present mess in the Balkans. This is one reason why I object so strongly to Coates’ desires and plans to Balkanize racism in this country by using it as a means to create an original sin of white guilt and an excuse for failure in Black-American culture allowing both to be handed down through generations so as to “Balkanize” Americans for generations to come if it is not stopped now before it gets entrenched.

 
It would be as silly for me to talk about my part Slavic past with pride and as a basis to claim land (as some fools do) as it is for MP Burney to talk about her Aboriginal past with pride and to make a claim to still own the land for “Aboriginals” — a word created by Westerners in the same way that words such as Slavic and Asian are really just Western generalizations of a more convoluted cultural and social identity. The actual “Aboriginals” identified themselves by their family group or tribe in the same way that Slavic people actually see themselves as Croats, Slovens, Serbs, Slovaks, and many more, and “Asian” is a set made up of thousands of different cultural and social identities. We should look to the past with empathy, pity, and as a source of knowledge and lessons for the future. From the government perspective, the perspective a PM and anyone in our United States government should use, land should belong to the future not to any past.

 
Is diversity of thought and ideas really possible? We are quantitatively better, but is humanity qualitatively any better in the modern world? We do not have infanticide but do have abortion to the tune of a million a year just in the United States with the vast majority of those being abortions of poor unmarried women’s babies — is the latter in essence any better if not real genocide? At least the Aboriginals did their own killing of their own babies within their own family. We do not start wars over women but do so over pretty much everything else, and now we have machines do our killing for us. Is that in essence any better? It is important to decide if the emphasis on diversity is really just another struggle started by the powers so that they can watch from on-high hoi polloi waste energy fighting among themselves. For the first time in history, we have the science and technology to create separate-but-equal subcultures within our larger American culture. If it is the essence of humanity for individuals not to get along with individuals different from themselves, it is time to admit it and create a better future using this truth instead of continuing the misery of the past onto posterity by ignoring such truth for a nonsense dream of “diversity” achieving nothing but separation and fighting.

Coates and New School Racism: “Something In It For Me?”

“But I did not take education seriously until I saw something in it for me, aside from what everyone else thought.” This is how the genius commentator and thinker on racism Ta-Nehisi Coates ends a series of blogs and articles written by him and one about him by another journalist in which Coates summarizes his philosophy for presenting education to black males in middle and high schools. This is an important topic. Only 60% of black males graduate high school. Of those that do not graduate, 60% wind up in jail. Reading his philosophy based on his failed experiences with education is a very enlightening experience on race and racism in the United States. Not because the comments are in any way enlightening — as usual his comments are sophomoric at best, just spitting out what rich white people want to hear. They are enlightening because they embody the modern American new school racist’s justifications for racism yet Coates is too clueless to even know it, thus further nurturing that racism unintentionally.

 
According to Coates:
— For high school, he was admitted to the prestigious Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, one of the top public (that is free) high schools in the country. While a freshman there, he was arrested for punching a teacher in the face and suspended on suspicion of assaulting another teacher. Somehow, because of his educated parents’ argument to the school and the court, he avoided both jail and getting kicked out of the school. In gratitude for such leniency, he made it to his senior year with a 1.8 GPA and failing the English requirement but none of it mattered because he got into another fight and was then expelled but still avoided jail. These results did not bother him because he did not see in education “something in it for me.”
— In preparation for formal education, his mother, who was a teacher in the Baltimore Public School system, began home schooling Coates at age four teaching him to read and write and then to start writing essays about “me”, his problems, his sense of injustice, and how he felt about “me.” His preparation continued into a middle school that was so advanced it tried to teach him French in the 7th grade but he thought it was all a joke, “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.” He did not agree with his older siblings who saw and used education as the means to their engineering, business, and graduate degrees. He did not see “something in it for me.”
— He supposedly wanted to attend Baltimore Poly because it was a way to avoid the violence in his neighborhood and the other schools. According to his descriptions of that violence, it was instigated either by him or by his father’s beatings of him. So, as the cause of the violence, he did not get away from it but simply brought it with him. As a young black male, he was a success in adding to Baltimore crime statistics in which young black males that are only 10% of the population commit 50%-60% of the violent crimes and 75%-85% of the murders. Education did not stop his violence because he did not see “something in it for me.”
— Despite such a resume for his college application, thanks to his father’s book publishing business and employment as head librarian at Howard, he was able to get admission and a free ride to Howard University for five years without graduating. Other than the learning he received from his sexual exploits in college, he did not graduate because he did not see “something in it for me”
— Coates is the second youngest of his father’s children. His father had seven children with three women. Giving his father the benefit of a doubt and thus assuming that his college-educated father was not a stereotypical black male who sees relationships with women as solely a means for free sex but actually financially supported the three mothers of his children and did not make them rely on government welfare, public funds, Medicaid, and single mother households to raise his children for him, his father’s business and education must have been fairly successful to provide such financial support for a family of eleven people in total. Despite these good family examples of the power of education, family support, and hard work, Coates still did not see “something in it for me.”
— While at Howard, his father’s connections got him a job at a local black owned newspaper where Coates finally saw “something in it for me.” As a result of that “something”, he goes on to describe some of its rewards: spending time in Paris with his fellow intelligentsia enjoying French society; spending time in Aspen with rich people; going to “Ideas Festivals” with his fellow creative genius minds of American intelligentsia.

What was the light he finally saw that he could not see before and of which he informs black males?

 
As is true throughout history, we live in a world of misery that at its worse includes barely literate and even illiterate barefoot, peasant families living in war zones or drug infested, disease inflected, unsanitary shanties governed by despots or such inefficient, uncaring governments that they might as well be despots. Despite such misery, even in the worse conditions many of these ignorant peasants still imagine and dream: about getting an education somewhere, anywhere; of emigrating to the United States; of learning English, French, Italian, German, or anything to get the hell out of their misery; of the benefits of duty and loyalty to hard work, love of family, and respect of family; of the benefits of duty, loyalty, and love to teachers and to those who show compassion and caring for them; and most important, who can still have empathy for nonviolence and hope for a better life, even the leap of faith to religious hope. So, did Coates see the light that he was a selfish, self-centered, ungrateful, violent, lazy, arrogant, pompous, ignorant fool who lacked the insight to see the opportunities freely handed him by the love of his family and the altruism of society, who also lacked the imagination to see anything beyond the small pond in which he was the big fish? Did he see the need or at least feel the guilt to apologize to those he hurt, including the tax payers and financial donators who gave him a free ride through most of his life? Did he see the need to tell students about the historical significance of Western Civilization and their luck of living a society that is the end result of millions upon millions of lives who suffered and died with hope attempting to pass on to posterity Christian duties to love your neighbor as yourself, to live in truth, to have faith, to repent one’s sins, to give proof of humility, to love justice, to be merciful, to be sincere and wholehearted and to endure persecution and suffering for these virtues?

 
No, he became enlightened to see all is forgiven without even need of asking for forgiveness because of the excuse that some of his ancestors were slaves and he was black. The two must be taken together. We all have ancestors who were slaves. His enlightenment was that his childhood problems ensue from the slavery resulting from his African ancestors capturing their enemies and through Muslim traders selling 5% of them to the American colonies — that is the only slavery that matters. He saw this “something in it for me” and the need to pass this excuse onto posterity. Thus began his career as a genius writer.

 
According to Coates, true equality will mean “black people in this country have the right to be as mediocre as white people.” Shit, Wall Street bankers and managers are selfish, self-centered, ungrateful, violent, too lazy to see or care about the effects of their acts, arrogant, pompous, ignorant fools who lack the insight and imagination to feel empathy. So for true equality, black people should be allowed to be and do the same, right? A racist will see in Coates not only the true equality he wants but an unfair preference by the powers-that–be in which they treat a mediocre and selfish person, writer, and citizen as a genius simply because he is black and says what rich white folks want him to say. A racist will see the Coates family’s and his community’s failure to call Coates on his ignorance and hypocrisy as a further unfair preference granted to him because he is black.

 
Of course, such racism is irrational and morally wrong. One should not judge all blacks by this one individual Coates. One should not racially profile, refuse to associate, or refuse to employ blacks or discriminate against them in anyway simply because of bad apples such as Coates or any other like him.

 
One should not; but why not, is there “something in it for me”?

New School Racism: White History Month Week Three

In this third week, we have another group honoree who I will use as a standard by which to judge new school racists’ future acts, statements, and character to see if I should reject my new school racist opinion of them: Lowell Mill Girls. This historical group consists of the female workers who went to work for the textile corporate mills in Lowell, Massachusetts during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the United States. These workers were all predominantly from farm economies. By 1840 when the start of America’s Industrial Revolution was gaining full steam, the Lowell textile mills employed approximately 8,000 women making up about 75% of the workforce. These women came to these mills freely as a way out of the drudgery of life on the farm that was never as romantic or idyllic, at least not for the average peasant farmer, as many modern fictions make it appear to have been. They came not only to obtain supplementary income for their family back on the farm but also to gain economic independence as women earning their own salaries and for the cultural and educational opportunities offered by life in the big city.

 
Initially, factory life with the economic, cultural, and educational independence it granted these women gave them high expectations for a better life, and they saw it as a very good opportunity. The women were hired through employment contracts of one year that could be renewed. The average female worker stayed about four years. During the height of these expectations, there were often found grandmothers, mothers, sisters, and their young children as young as 10 years old working in the mills together. The women usually lived in dormitories provided by the mills or in area boarding houses and thus quickly developed social bonds regardless of their life backgrounds. As should be expected of human nature and reality, gradually these expectations deteriorated along with the deteriorating factory conditions. The human mind is capable of the concept of infinity and the will to power that is usually never satisfied solely by material conditions, regardless of how well they may be at any given time. All social and even economic improvement is relative. To be a living human requires that there is and always should be hope for a better life either for oneself or for others.

 
When the conditions in the factories deteriorated; working requirements of 60 hour weeks or longer became the norm; the economy went through booms, recessions, and depressions resulting in the factories cutting wages and income support; and the working conditions got more dangerous, by 1845 the women formed the first union of working women in the United States called the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association and published their own newspaper called The Voice of Industry in which workers published essays, reports, and critiques of the Industrial Revolution and their own personal conditions. At present, unless you are very familiar with history, it is hard to appreciate the courage of such acts. As indicated by my prior blog on the Hay Market Square Riots, in the 19th century organized union activities could and often were considered an illegal conspiracy subject to both criminal and tort violations.

 
Not only did they organize unions and start protests and strikes but they were successful protests and strikes. These early successes gave hope to other union organizers and eventually led to the golden age of union organizing from 1881 to 1905 in which historians have documented approximately 37,000 strikes by workers against their working conditions. This golden age was gradually destroyed by the majesty of the law through numerous judicial rulings and legislative acts along with their judicial interpretation varying from the Norris LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act of 1932 to the Taft Hartley Act of 1947. That last Act began the end of the second boom in union organization during World War II and post-World War II that was in large part responsible for making sure that the wartime profits of the powers-that-be trickled down to all workers. By the 1980’s, the golden age of unions was dead and the power of unions finally ended with the Reagan administration and its forced breakup of the PATCO strike of 1981. Since then, except for government workers — the employees who are in the least need of any type of unions — unions in the United States are not only seen as a remnant from the past but even among workers the powers have been able to indoctrinate into them and market the idea that unions should be archaic remnants of the past and are evils to be avoided. True, unions were greedy power hungry organizations, but the fact is ignored that they had to be to survive and win against the greedy power hungry corporations they were fighting who had the law on their side.

 
As I wrote earlier, historically the only essential difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery was the wage slaves’ ability to maintain social and cultural relationships that allowed for the formation of rebellions against the powers-that-be. Materially, the chattel slave usually had a better life but not spiritually or socially. The material success of modern Technological Society has taken this power away from the modern world of wage slaves. Workers are now wage slaves with access to all the material necessities of life but none of the social bonds once necessary to gain material necessities in life. With the leisure, marketing, and communications power provided by modern technological success, the powers-that-be are now free to keep us fighting among ourselves by fake struggles such as new school racism.

 
Most present workers in relative, qualitative terms are probably no better off than the Lowell Mill Girls: many still work 60 – 70 hours a week to survive; as a result of a lifetime of work, 80% of America’s workers will wind up owning about 10% of the economic wealth they create; 40% of the wealth produced by their lifetime of work will be owned by the richest 1%. Problem is that instead of working 60-70 hours a week in a noisy, smelly, polluted factory, most workers spend their time in heated, air-conditioned spaces, with whatever hope they have for the future routinely negated by the constant fear of losing the present while having no social or cultural connection to any other worker in the same bind and thus having no social or cultural option to rebel against it — only the existentialist rebellion allowed to any individual who can overcome the fear of losing whatever they have. O’Brien’s Room 101 from Orwell’s 1984 has come to life but it is no longer a room with a rat cage but a sterile, pleasantly decorated, warm, friendly room with surround sound of bullshit negating conscious, complex tragedy and thought in the classical sense, to replace it with fear, hatred, and the joy or pain of either triumph or self-abasement loss in nonsense battles over bull-shit but no dignity of deep or complex sorrow nor of clear rational thought.

 
Oh well, beats working 60-70 hours a week in a noisy, smelly, polluted factory. In case you may disagree and are starting to look for options that I do not see, I leave you with the following quote by an anonymous author known as “operative” in the Factory Tracts pamphlets published by the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association:

When you sell your product, you retain your person. But when you sell your labour, you sell yourself, losing the rights of free men and becoming vassals of mammoth establishments of a monied aristocracy that threatens annihilation to anyone who questions their right to enslave and oppress.
Those who work in the mills ought to own them, not have the status of machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching monarchic principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards freedom and rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality in the new commercial feudalism.

Nice speech. I would be happy for now if the aristocracy and private despots would just stop bombarding me and messing up my watching of the few NFL games I watch with their new school racism and claim of entitlement to their status as aristocracy and private despots because some of them are black.

Classism and Islam

My contemplation of racism and classism is enough of a mine field without getting into religion but I will get into it just this once (I hope just this once) because it is such a prevalent topic and because of my recent reading of an article entitled “Islam’s Exceptional Relationship to Politics” by a self-entitled “person of world influence” contained in the publication The Washington Diplomat. As I have previously stated, in Western Civilization, religion especially Christianity and its much ridiculed “slave morality” served as one of the few means by which workers could organize and fight the powers-that-be. (This is substantively no longer true as even Christian churches seem to have surrendered to the power of the Outer Party known as the law.) I did not get into the history of Eastern Civilization because in that history religion rarely served as an alternative to social class power or as a basis for workers to organize against the powers, instead Eastern religion usually acted and acts as an extension of the social class power structure. Like new school racism, Eastern religion served and serves both as a means to maintain class structure and to affirmatively promote it. The most obvious example of this is the Hindu caste system of India that was also picked up and formalized into British colonial legal culture by the powers of the British Empire as a means to control their colonial subjects in India.

 
Getting into a history of Eastern religions is beyond the limitations of this blog and would require extensive reading of detailed history books not just the reading of popular pontificating on Eastern religion that for whatever reason seems to enjoy evoking an exoticism for the Orient and its religions making them seem to be some type of peaceful alternative to Western religion that they most certainly are not. Buddhism is an example of this desperate distortion of Eastern religion into a Shangri-La. It is true that the present Dalai Lama is a pacifist trying to promote Buddhism as a religion of peace but much of this results from the fact that Tibet was badly beaten by the Chinese Army when it — not China — started the Sino-Tibetan War to regain territory lost in prior wars with China. Any reading of the history of Tibet and of how prior Dalai Lamas’ achieved a unified Tibet through outright murder of their opposition with their families would extinguish any delusion one might have of Buddhism as a religion of peace. It is doubtful that the Chinese have any such delusion given the way Buddhist Japanese Army officers treated them in the Battle (also known as the Rape) of Nanking in 1937 during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

 
As discussed in more detail in the podcast http://www.sandpebblespodcast.com, religion is supposed to be the cultural and physical expression of a culture’s rational answer to the question: “why is there something instead of nothing”? Regardless of how many successful answers science provides to the problems it tackles, it is limited to creating pragmatic fiction that can be proven false. Science’s dependence on inductive reasoning by logical and ontological necessity means that it can never give non-pragmatic true conclusions, it can only provide conclusions that can be proven false. This may seem like I am belittling science but the contrary is true; giving statements that can be proven false is better than what any art, pseudo-science, or any other product of human reason can usually do. However, regardless of the logical difficulties, reaching non-pragmatic or absolute truth is the goal, substance, and essence of any religion on the question of “why is there something instead of nothing”?

 
In history, in many eras, there was a fine line between religion and politics; often they were the same and often one would transform into the other. The ancient empires’ worship of the state was both religion and politics. Much of the success of Western Civilization has to do with the separation into equal adversaries of politics and religion. Much of the present inability of modern Technological Society to advance any meaningful social ethics keeping up with our technological advances and the ever-reaching and omnipresent power of Big Brother and its Inner Party is due to the fact that politics and its Outer Party the law no longer have any serious adversaries — neither religion nor anything else. As the 20th Century World Wars proved, science and its created technology are not adversaries to any politics and never will be, they will serve any master.

 
However, there is no such fine line, never was, nor will there ever be any line between politics and religion for Islam. Islam has “an exceptional relationship to politics” because it is politics. It was essentially started by the warrior prophet Mohammad to unite warring tribes into a grand army, conquer much of the Middle East and North Africa, create a large commercial and political empire so that he could die a rich and powerful man with many slaves, servants, and wives. He was essentially a 7th Century upper class Adolf Hitler who succeeded in his plans to build a thousand-year Reich that is now trying to evolve into another thousand-year Reich. Much of this success was due to Islam’s tradition of using slaves as warriors promising them their freedom if they win the war. Many Muslim nations did not formally outlaw chattel slavery until the 1960’s and 1970’s but it still exists informally in many areas. This type of politics can give hope to workers for some form of meaning in their lives but meaning in life is not the sole definition of religion. Even Nazism and Japanese Shintoism gave many people meaning in life, so much so that they were willing to die for it on suicide missions and as Kamikaze. The meaning must come from the answer to the question, “why is there something instead of nothing”?

 

 

Christianity’s answer to that question is a founder who died an outcaste criminal and rebel to Caesar leaving behind only the Sermon on the Mount and its Beatitudes — a true “working class hero” in the heavy metal Ozzy Osborn tradition or in the Paul McCarthy pop tradition or in any tradition or view of working or even middle class life. Islam’s answer to this question is a successful military conqueror and commercial business magnate using a rigid military and social class system to succeed. Muslims who become terrorists are not corrupted by “radical Islam”; they are the nature of Islam and true followers of its warrior founder Mohammad. Though it is true that most Muslims are peaceful people, such was also true of most Nazis, communists, and other fascists; such truth does not change the true substantive nature of either Nazism, communism, or fascism and their effect upon workers and the middle class.

 
In short, Islam is not an alternative to the Outer and Inner Party, it is the Outer and Inner Party for much of Eastern Civilization and provides no hope for workers of either the working or middle classes to avoid a life time of wage slavery nor an Orwellian 1984 society but is one of the available means by which such slavery and society is being created.

Classism and the Law / Part II

I was hoping to give some specific options for viable civil disobedience of the law; but given the constant ongoing social and cultural changes in modern technological society and the almost hourly change in the “law”, I see no way of giving realistic options. How to engage in this disobedience is a personal choice dependent on each individual’s abilities and material position in life. Any suggestions I give ignorant of those abilities and position would be worthless. Instead I want to give an example of the possibilities and some hope for options by describing events that happened to my daughter.

 
My daughter worked for a year in Los Angeles living in the old Koreatown in an apartment building whose tenants were primarily Hispanic immigrants. Most did not speak English and at least some were illegal. While there, she did her laundry in the building laundry room and would often return for her clothes after the dryer cycle was over. When this occurred, the clothes would not only be neatly stacked in a corner of the laundry room table but were often folded and placed in a neat stack on the table. There was never anything missing. Throughout her stay there, despite the radical social differences between them, most of the other tenants saw her as a single woman, alone, that needed to be watched over as they would a daughter.

 
In a later year, she worked in Washington, D.C. and lived in an apartment in the prestigious Kalorama Heights. The other tenants of the building were law-abiding citizens working either for the government directly or for powers working for the government but without doubt all were concerned with enforcing equality and respect for all. As with Koreatown, she did her laundry in the building laundry room and again would often return for her clothes after the dryer cycle was over. However when this occurred, the clothes would not be neatly stacked in a corner of the laundry room table but she was lucky to find them thrown on the table instead of a corner of the room. Not only were the clothes not folded and placed in a neat stack on the table, but many times something was stolen from the stack. At best they saw her as a competitor in the struggle for power, at worse as a chump.

 
As I have covered before, the only options for the working class to survive as an opposing culture outside of the law is by physical rebellion, family, or religion. Physical rebellion is suicide in the modern technological society and of no value at least for the foreseeable future. Western religion has itself surrendered to the law as its ethical master. Eastern Religion was always a vassal of secular politics. This leaves family. By family, I use the word as defined by George Orwell in 1984:

Tragedy, he perceived, belonged to the ancient time, to a time when there was still privacy, love, and friendship, and when the members of a family stood by one another without needing to know the reason. His mother’s memory tore at his heart because she had died loving him, when he was too young and selfish to love her in return, and because somehow, he did not remember how, she had sacrificed herself to a conception of loyalty that was private and unalterable.

The concept of family is radically changing and will continue to change in the near future. The intent of the powers and their law seems to be a unisex, beige world consisting of secular religious cults called work made up of wage slaves and their masters that respect each other in the way the Kalorama Heights residents publicly say they do and publicly expect you to do — or else. Koreatown shows that this intended Brave New World need not be the end of the family. As Orwell’s Winston of 1984 discovered:

What mattered were individual relationships, and a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man, could have value in itself. The proles had stayed human. They had not become hardened inside. They had held on to the primitive emotions which he himself had to re-learn by conscious effort. And in thinking this he remembered, without apparent relevance, how a few weeks ago he had seen a severed hand lying on the pavement and had kicked it into the gutter as though it have been a cabbage-stalk.

One can only hope.

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.