Picking Your Battles

History is class struggle, but within this class struggle exist the individual struggles that make up our lives. In these individual struggles, one must pick and choose the right battles to fight or not to fight in order to have any chance to survive getting involved in the class struggle. There is an interesting historical anecdote about General Robert E. Lee regarding his life after the Civil War. At a mass at his local Southern Episcopal Church right after the War, at communion time the first person to get in line to receive communion was an elderly Black man recently freed from slavery as a result of the War; this was the congregation’s first encounter with the supposedly new integrated South and it simply sat in stunned silence with no one knowing what to do. Until, one elderly but distinguished man got up from his pew and got into line behind the Black man; then, others joined the communion line. According to the story, the man second in line was the recently discharged veteran General Lee. At some point, even after the greatest and most hateful of struggles, if one actually believes in life more than death as meaning in life, one has got to let go and get on with life. Unlike the concepts of race and racism, getting involved in language self-identity battles — be they sex, gender, feminist, or whatever — are not battles worth fighting and should be let go quickly if begun. Once one accepts that language including its words and the meaning of its words is a social construct, it is conceptually inconsistent, holistically illogical, and practically hypocritical and wasteful to engage in individual battles of self-identity either with the proverbial Self or any of the so-called Other or Others and to get involved with self-identity politics unless they have a class struggle component. Fighting worthless battles distracts and detracts from the class struggle that really does ultimately identify and define us.

I have contemplated elsewhere the reality of self-identity. The existential reason for one’s existence that makes up one’s soul or the spiritual reality of the proverbial Self precedes the social construction of language and is not something of which we can speak in language — except perhaps at best indirectly or implicitly through the illusions and delusions of aesthetics. The battle for one’s soul and its demons will always be a private battle fought in silence. But, the unfortunate or fortunate reality is also that the meaning of the words “one’s self-identity” or anything similar trying to mean the self-identity of the Self is a social construction created by social construction through the Self’s struggles with Others and by struggles among Others. It is fortunate that there is no self-identified purely private self-identity because if there really were a “self-identity” created only by the Self, there will be no way to avoid solipsism and the possibility that we spend our whole lives talking to ourselves — either as a mind of ideas or as a material brain in a vat. The unfortunate reality is that “one’s self-identity” is what society says it is; you are what Others say you are even if your Self disagrees with it. It is only through the social construction of language that we know we are not alone. Take away social behavior and its resulting language in either direct form or indirect form such as by the experience that makes up memory and there is nothing remaining of “self-identity”. The unfortunate and fortunate reality is that if society and its social construction of language call you or name your identity as a wimp, tomboy, feminine male, masculine female, A or B type personality, as Blackness or Whiteness or whatever race, or as whatever, regardless of how distasteful you find it or how much you dislike being called such words, those words are your identity including your self-identity.

Can you try to change your self-identity created by social construction? Yes, struggling for such change is an option. At one time, a social construct “feminine male” for example would start lifting weights, getting involved in physical sports, and be socially aggressive in order to change how social construction identifies them. Now, the option exists to do actual physical surgery converting the physical appearance of someone in order to avoid the “feminine male” identity. The same is true for the reverse. It may work, but it may not. It may occur, as is occurring now, that the concept of “feminine male” will be phased out, be considered bigoted, and replaced by concepts such as transgender or one of the many new socially constructed genders; or, the entire social construct process of assigning feminine and masculine attributes may eventually be phased out in favor of unisex attributes. This latter progression is not that unusual in English because English lacks the grammatical genders contained in Romance Languages such as Latin, French, Italian, and so forth. Unlike these languages, many of our English words and their meanings are and have always been unisex. (As always, the French post-modern and other continental intelligentsia and their worshipers here in American intelligentsia who are so quick to criticize and ridicule English and American language use and usefulness should look at their own glass houses first before throwing stones at ours.) In which case, your new social construct self-identity may be transgender or apparently whatever you want it to be seems to be the new language fad. Regardless, no one controls their self-identity, it is controlled by what social construction is willing to accept. It may be willing to accept only two genders, it may be willing to accept six billion genders; either way, your self-identity is what society and especially its ruling class says it is. Sure you can disagree with it and thus add to the struggle that is life, but is it worth the battle? Is it worth the battle for your Self to fight with the Others who are struggling with their self-identity?

Whether one needs or wants to fight their social construct self-identity is a personal struggle all individuals should be free to make. Frankly, if “acceptance” of your self-identity requires that you physically or surgically start cutting off or cutting out healthy parts of your healthy body, I would suggest that you would be better off in acceptance of your social construct self-identity and in the forgetting of whatever your Self’s self-identity may be; however, ultimately, it is your body and your decision to make and you will get no struggle from me on making it.

However, what about when this self-identity struggle becomes a public struggle? That is, what about when individuals start demanding social support and perhaps social expenditure upon their individual struggle to change their socially constructed self-identity? This is when intelligent choices need to be on what battles to fight and which not to fight. The guide to use is: first, determine how the battle will affect class struggle; then, if there will be no adverse effect or it will be minimal, go onto more important battles and let the individuals struggle and perhaps even change social construct self-identities.

Perfect examples of how this process ought to work are the present ongoing feminist demands and resulting disputes on whether transgenders and the like will be allowed to compete athletically with their social construct opposites or to use their bathrooms — such as allowing transgender females to compete in women’s sports and to use women’s bathrooms and the reverse though the reverse seems to be much less common. This is simply a battle not worth fighting. If feminists really want transgender females to compete in women’s sports, let them. The worse that can happen is that the transgender females will win. This is not a class struggle; if women have a problem with feminists advocating and successfully getting want they want in society, let them work it out among themselves. Similarly, there is the issue of bathroom use. Feminists want transgender females to use female bathrooms, fine, let them. If this is a problem, let them work it out among themselves, it is not a class struggle. I have no problem with a transgender male using a male bathroom with me; compared to some of the things I saw in public bathrooms growing up in the Chicago area and while in the Navy, I doubt this would even raise an eyebrow if I saw it (try imagining what a Navy shipboard crew’s head looks like after sanitary tanks were inadvertently blown inboard instead of outboard — not a pretty site or smell). If you are concerned about a daughter who might not feel safe in such a public bathroom with a transgender female, teach her to deal with it as necessary. A truly independent woman should be able to deal with and know how to feel and be safe in a lot worse things and experiences in life then what may be or may not be a dude using her public restroom. When the feminists start feeling unsafe in their bathrooms, they will quickly abandon the transgender source of their discomfort anyway and amend feminist dogma so as to oppose it.

The same is usually true of most feminist struggles: better just give them what they want and avoid the battle. Feminists want women to be treated equally as men treat each other? Fine, treat them so. Men treat each other very badly is the reality of the patriarchy; if feminists want the same treatment, fine. Such surrender to the feminist struggle is much better than the present state of affairs in which feminists want and usually get all the benefits of being in control of a patriarchy without any of the adversities. They want forced affirmative action so that 50% of all professions such as doctors, lawyers, and academics are women; fine, use the same force also to make 50% of all soldiers, sailors, and first responders women.

One self-identity battle that is worth fighting is the self-identity politics of Whiteness and Blackness. Here we are 150 years after General Lee got in line beyond someone identified at the time as a Black man; it is universally accepted that race defined by skin color is an unnecessary social construct so that no man or any person should any longer be identified as Black or White; and yet concepts such as Blackness and Whiteness are still fueling all sorts of trouble and racism. They do so because race and racism not only are social constructs maintaining a ruling class but are also economic social constructs that make money for the ruling class and its intelligentsia thus not only conceptually but materially are empowering the ruling class. As I have written in other essays, sycophants and intellectual proletariats such as Ta-Nehisi Coates get rich and become ruling class elitists by complaining about race and racism and would be nothing without them; thus, they have no incentive to eliminate them, and they promote new school race and racism as the source of meaning for their lives. “Race is more than a biological category or a social category. It has become an industry, with its own infrastructure, branches, incentives and agendas.” — Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Race. p. 128. Fighting both the old school racism of the past and the new school racism of the present new school racists such as Coates and the like is not an individual struggle of self-identity but class struggle that must be fought.

Immigration and Historical Argument

As an immigrant to this country, it is extremely painful intellectually and emotionally to listen to present day argument on President Trump’s attempted immigration ban or on immigration overall. As contemplated in my previous “Classism and Democracy” submission, I see this argument as further proof of Plato’s and historical precedent’s prediction that democracy eventually becomes anarchy which then eventually becomes tyranny. The most painful part is listening to all parties make arguments from or based on history.

I love history. There is no reading more enjoyable then reading a detailed factual history written by a scholarly historian. I am not talking about popular histories that sacrifice factual detail in order to bring supposed important personalities or dogma to life such as those written by Howard Zinn or Doris Kearns Goodwin that are really polemics. I mean detailed factual histories in which the reader must use their life experience and imagination to bring the participants to life: regardless of whether it is a lone forever unknown soldier or sailor defending their post to the death or the general or admiral who put them there. It is really a beautiful thing to have come to life in my imagination some part of the generations of human lives dead now whose struggles have made my world what it is.

Regardless of this love, in the present I know history to be — maybe it always was — a fungible commodity to be changed, amended, altered, or outright lied about in order to support whatever the powers and their house servants (such as Ta-Nehisi Coates) believe the present ought to be or whatever they want to make of the future. They all do it. The Left argues that the Right’s arguments against feminism or transgender whatever are the same socially marginalizing arguments made against women and homosexuals in the past while ignoring that their arguments for a socialism-based system of morality based on government power are the same as used by every modern form of Western tyranny from communism to Nazism. The Right argues that the Left’s arguments for a socialism-based system of morality based on government power is the same as every modern form of Western tyranny from communism to Nazism while ignoring that their arguments for individual freedom and social responsibility for individual decision ignore the unavoidable reality that the majority of humans are not free to choose their economic, social, or religious positions in life.

Argument from history requires detailed historical knowledge and the ability to critically analyze historical details. One cannot do the latter without the former. The former takes work unless reading history is your version of having fun — humans in the latter category in my experience are few and far between. Unless you have a large stockpile of historical facts in your mind from all aspects and views of history there is nothing for your mind to critically analyze. As far as I can see, except for history scholars or nerds such as me who spend their free time reading history instead of having modern fun, few engage in the work required to critically analyze history to the point of allowing for honest argument based on history.

So, knock it off! We live in a complicated world. There are enough facts to learn and critically analyze in the present in order to use for argument on what the future ought to be or on what ought to be. If there is any hope of avoiding Plato’s prediction of anarchy and then tyranny, forget history and stick to knowing and analyzing the present. One lesson from reading history I have learned is that it does not repeat itself out of ignorance and it is not a straitjacket. If one pragmatically understands the present, one can change the future. When history does repeat itself, it does so out of destiny, fate, luck, or whatever one wants to call it, and there is nothing anyone can do about avoiding that repetition, either out of knowledge or ignorance.

“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 VI

In using my hypothetical technological scenario to get a better understanding of human nature in general and in particular its racism, for this to be honest contemplation, one must be clear and honest as to the pragmatic nature of technology, of the factual reality of the Dolezal events, and of what is at stake.

Technology has been a good for humanity in almost any way that can be quantitatively measured. As described in Azar Gat’s book, War in Human Civilization, as a result of the industrial and technological eras, material prosperity and progress in human civilization are no longer zero sum games requiring one’s tribe, city, nation, or whatever may be our social group to take forcibly wealth from another’s tribe, city, nation, or whatever in order to progress materially. For the major social players in life now consisting of nation states, there is a power surplus making war unnecessary among them. In fact, war is no longer the best means for achieving power; peace with its sophisticated propaganda techniques and the law as a secular religious monopoly on violence provides the simplest and easiest techniques for the few to achieve power over the many. For the present, war is an option for relations between nation states and failed nation states but not between successful nation states. Eventually war will exist solely between a world-nation and “super-empowered angry men” — and women if sexes continue in the future — known as terrorists, fanatics, zealots, just plain crazy, and the like.

This material progress results from humanity’s struggles to fight and to end the wars of the past and from humanity’s struggles and war with nature to survive it and to conquer it. There is still much of nature out there to be conquered. There is a whole universe waiting to be discovered, explored, and conquered. It is not clear that the new school nature of war as a struggle between a world-nation and the individual will provide the same necessary mentality, skills, and desire to conquer nature as the old school wars have done. No matter how glorified the state of war may have been in the past, workers were always able and willing to change loyalties to whatever 1% won or loss the war as necessary to survive onto the next war; in order to survive there was no getting stuck in the past for workers. Offense was always the best defense for workers. In our future new school war between the state and terrorists, fanatics, zealots, “super-empowered angry men”, or whatever those that want to cause the apocalypse to come early may be called, the state of war will be omnipresence and unavoidable. There will be no possibility for workers to change loyalties from the losing to the winning powers; no past or future states of war requiring an offense to survive but only an Orwellian 1984 omnipresent permanent state of war. There will be no winners or losers, only survivors with no desire to explore, discover, and conquer for fear of defying the powers-that-be that will make up one global 1% with no competition. For workers, the wars of the future will not directly involve material and physical suffering but spiritual, economic, and mental health suffering indirectly threatening their physical survival as the spiritual, economic, and mental health suffering works its way through workers’ communities and lives.

The Boston Marathon bombings are a good example of this future state of war. Two nuts blow up the Boston Marathon eventually causing 5 – 6 deaths and approximately 265 injuries. In the aftermath, thousands of police officers using millions of dollars of equipment and earning millions of dollars of overtime pay shutdown Boston and the surrounding communities and are allowed freedom to search whoever, wherever, and whenever they want. No one complained then or since about that temporary police state — seen both then and now as benevolent and as a pragmatical good necessity. In an average year, Boston has about 40 – 60 murders and about 5000 violent crimes. Usually only about 40 – 50% of the murders are solved, even less of the violent crime. It is only a matter of time before the temporary benevolent police state of the Boston Marathon bombings becomes the norm in order to control the nuts and to eliminate the remainder of the chaos and disorder caused by individual freedom. I am not saying this is good or bad; it is the future and for purposes of this contemplation must be accepted as so for now and as the necessary outcome of technological and thus material progress.

Qualitatively however, technology has not changed human nature. Its true nature comes up in the quiet moments when there is no work nor any other force or need requiring that people cooperate and socialize and get along with each other. It is revealed in the personal moments in which individuals are left only with the “I am therefore I think” of existentialism; their will to power or to hopelessness; and their choice or destined acts on either will. It is this qualitative nature that is brought out by the Dolezal events. Dolezal is a single mother (divorced from a black man she met at Howard University) with two children. One of the children is the son of her ex-husband and the other is an adopted son consisting of one of her brothers. There were no accusations that she was not qualified technically or educationally for her job as head of the NAACP office in Spokane nor that she was incompetent at it. In fact, all indications were that she was good at her job. She lost her livelihood and the ability to support her family simply because — according to the powers-that-be and their white and black friends such as Coates’ black people, tribes, or black bodies or whatever they call themselves to avoid using the word ‘race’ — she was not of the correct skin color. How is this different from racism? It is not. It is politically correct new school racism. If she was hired for the job based on her skills, competence, and qualifications, she should have kept her job regardless of her skin color and cultural, people, tribal, or whatever ‘race’ substitute are used to classify her. If calling herself “black” was a sign of mental illness as some of the politically correct argue, based on human empathy for the misfortunes of others, this should have been just another reason to let her keep her job. The human mentality that was willing to throw her and her family into the street for having the wrong skin color is the same mentality that in the past would have enslaved her or worse for having the wrong skin color.

As contemplated in this series of blogs, technology through a “White No More” or “Black No More” will eliminate old school racism and the wasted physical struggles and wars it caused. It will not eliminate politically correct new school racism and its wasted spiritual, economic, and mental health struggles. As seen with Dolezal, new school racism does not care about creating a pragmatic work culture for future discovering, exploring, and conquering the universe, it wants a hereditary passing of power for being black. Eventually it will cause a substantial portion of society consisting of Coates’ black race, tribe, or whatever to operate in the same way that American Indian Reservations continue to exist and operate: individuals pretending to be Sioux, Navajo, or whatever dead culture and language they want to pretend they are so that a few self-centered leaders have power over a small fiefdom of delusional lives that add nothing to humanity’s destiny and need to discover, explore, and conquer the universe. This will be a waste of lives and resources. If one sees a future benevolent police state as a necessary good, such waste of lives and resources on new school racism is probably harmless in the end just as the lives and resources wasted on maintaining American Indian Reservations are fairly harmless for now. However, if one wants to minimize (I do not believe it is possible to avoid it entirely) as much as possible the adverse effects and power of a benevolent police state so that it does not become the dystopian 1984 of George Orwell, this new school racism and its destruction of the human spirit and the wasted spiritual, mental, and economic struggles it causes are just as much a physical threat to humanity’s survival in its struggle with nature as was old 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):


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.

“White No More” / Part I

This contemplation is inspired by an almost forgotten great book: “Black No More” by George S. Schulyer. Mr. Schulyer originally came out of the Harlem Renaissance and continued to be a notable writer, satirist, journalist, and critic until his death in 1977. Unfortunately by then because of his opposition to almost all mainstream black leaders from W.E.B. Du Bois to Martin Luther King, he became an outcaste and estranged from mainstream black writers and now must be rediscovered to be appreciated. His novel “Black No More” was partially science fiction but mainly and substantively a study of human thought and character. His premise was that medical technology had developed the ability to make black skin white so black people could become white people. I will not give away the events nor end of the story. The science fiction portion of the story should no longer be considered fiction. If science can change the physical attributes of gender, generate clones, grow biological organs, and much more, I suspect that somewhere there is a lab experimenting with changing skin color and it is only a matter of time before the results are not only successful but successful in both ways: changing black skin to white and also white skin to black. Science will soon be able to make ‘people of color’ of whatever color they want: white, black, or anything in between so that a white person need be “white no more”.


Then what? Will technology finally end racism? Or, will this technology only make it worse by further isolating natural ‘black’ bodies from ‘white’ society? The certainty of this technology raises conceptual questions about our society’s use of the words ‘racism’ and ‘race’ that are interesting to contemplate and to answer.


These issues partially came up last year with the events of Rachel Dolezal, the former leader of the Spokane, Washington, NAACP chapter. She is the former head because the NAACP discovered she was white: both parents were listed as Caucasian on her Montana birth certificate and all her known ancestors had a complete Caucasian descent of mixed Czech, German, and Swedish origin. She did attend and graduate from Howard University, described by Ta-Nehisi Coates as the “black Mecca” though he was not able to graduate from there in five years of trying as Dolezal  did in the time usually required. She eventually admitted she was born “white” but considered herself “black”. She “identified as black” and felt constrained by the “biological identity thrust upon her”. Clearly, she did not consider being “black” only a sense experience issue of skin color but a rational construct of social and cultural relationships, and she wanted in on it. As could be predicted, she was universally condemned by the politically correct as a wigger and forced to resign. The liberal and feminist philosophers who provide the philosophical intellectual foundation for individual identity gender and sexual orientation constructs such as transgender, third gender, genderqueer, or whatever terms they create to make self-gratification sound intellectual were unwilling to honestly take their logic to its necessary conclusion in Dolezal’s case. (I do not mean to ridicule self-gratification. In reality, self-gratification may be the substantive motivating factor of all human life. I am just ridiculing the rationalizations done to avoid using the word ‘self-gratification’.)


Why were they unwilling to do so? To what extent if at all does being “black” define more than just skin color but also a social and cultural group of exclusive membership to those born with black skin? Why is ‘wigger’ considered to be a derogatory term while words such as ‘Italian-American’ are not? A wigger is a white person who tries to emulate or acquire cultural behavior and tastes attributed to black people. Seems fairly harmless, yet it is not. Why Not? This problem gets exponentially worse when we throw in persons of mixed heritage. If one out of two parents is black, is the child black? One out of four grandparents? One out of eight great grandparents? So forth? Only if the child looks black? Why do we have such a word as ‘Italian-American’ that has usually good but some bad connotations yet no word for mixed white-black Americans other than mixed or people of color? How much color makes you a person of color? Being a black person is supposedly a basis for illegal discrimination and oppression by white persons in the United States. Why was Dolezal not commended for her attempts to join an oppressed group and to help them? If she called herself Tibetan and joined a bunch of Buddhist monks in a hunger strike against China, she would be commended; how is calling herself black and joining them in their battle against oppression any different? Dolezal never claimed she had black skin, she was claiming to be “black”. Other people than assumed she had some shade of black skin or had black ancestors — why did they make that assumption? What if she claimed to be African-American? There are plenty of white African-Americans — whites born or descended from whites born in Africa. For her, such a claim would most definitely have been fraud and not the same as “black” because she was not born nor had any known relatives born in Africa, yet the same would be true of many black Americans that prefer to be called ‘African-American’ and are so-called. How is the meaning of the word ‘black’ in ‘black person’ distinct from the meaning of the work ‘black’ in the words ‘black skin’?


Can the philosophy of language help make sense of this mess? I want to try. If anyone wants to share in this contemplation, in order for it to make sense, we should share an understanding of some basis concepts in the philosophy of language. The first is humorously known as the “duck-rabbit” problem that I will contemplate next. In contemplating the nature of language, one must always apply Ockham’s Razor to avoid losing sight of the forest that is language by concentrating too much on the planting and growing of words as its trees.

Diversity Past and Future / Part III

Without doubt, the power of social and cultural diversity in which truly diverse people and ideas unite or work together for one goal when done correctly is the strongest cohesive factor of a culture and society and the strongest impetus for its social, economic, and cultural progress. During the first three years of the Second Punic War when the Roman Republic was primarily a power only of the Italian Peninsula and the Balkans, it was made up of hundreds of separate tribes, cultures, societies, languages, religions, and federates. In the first three major battles of that War (Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae), the Roman Republic lost 20% of its adult males. At present, that would be the equivalent of losing 20,000,000 males in war on the continental United States — not on foreign shores. These types of losses destroyed cultures in antiquity and in modern times (Western or Eastern) and it most certainly would destroy us. Not only did Rome continue to fight that War for another ten years, it eventually won, went on to create the Pax Romana that led to modern Western Civilization, and went on to become the dominant power in the West for the next fifteen hundred years.

My last essay ended with the conclusion that what the powers really mean by “diversity” is the biblical/Christian version but they want to achieve it by skipping the Christian Divine Law and Natural Law love and mercy basis for it instead going straight to the majesty of Positive and Human Law to achieve the wolf dwelling with the lamb, leopard lying beside the kid, and so forth. Is this even possible? How? What powers will decide what “dwelling with” et al means?

As the T-shirts say, “apartheid was legal, the holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, colonialism was legal.” The same is true of Jim Crow laws, enforced segregation in schools, enforced segregation in neighborhoods, and enforced segregation in employment. Now that legally enforced segregation based on ethnicity, race, and sex is gone, the powers want legally enforced integration, but only enforced integration for views with which they agree. The powers — and everyone else — are still free to terminate and discriminate based on incomprehensibly more common reasons for unfair discrimination: 1) did not wear the right clothes to your job interview; 2) did not like your tone of voice at the job interview; 3) being discourteous however random or arbitrary such may be defined; 4) not smiling enough at work; 5) riding motorcycles; 6) or any of the other almost infinite quantity of reasons for which one can lose their employment, housing, or meaning in life. “At-will” jobs are still “at-will” in which workers can lose their employment, housing, and anything they have for any reason or for no reason at all. As the workforce of modern technological society becomes 90% non-union and essentially temporary contract “at-will” laborers or workers, the powers show no intend to force any change or even to do anything about this future of wage slavery for all. As contemplated in my prior essays, they have no incentive to do anything about it because such wage slavery keeps the hoi polloi fighting between themselves and thus the powers in power.

Positive and Human law in the past has always acted as a monopoly of violence for the powers causing the problems of forced segregation in the first place. Some would argue it was not much better when associated with Divine and Natural Law, but it most certainly was better to the extent it gave humanity the idea of the wolf dwelling with the lamb, the leopard lying beside kid, and thus the idea of getting rid of legally enforced segregation. So, why should I now expect the majesty of the law to be any fairer in using power to integrate than it was using power to segregate? All judicial systems in the past thought they were different, just, and fair but were not. So, if we are to be scientific about this issue and use the past to predict the future, giving law the power to enforce “diversity” and integration after centuries of fighting to take away its power of segregation will not turn out well. What “diversity” has meant so far and will continue to mean in the future is diversity in sex, race, ethnicity, or whatever as long as we all think and act the same, follow orders, and work as ordered by the powers. We will have diversity of everything except ideas and thought such as is the status of our present political system.

What if I do not want to live and work with people different from myself? I only have one life, why cannot I live it solely with people I like just as the powers deal only with people they like: rich, powerful people or those who act and think like rich powerful people such as the rich white person Mr. Coates who also happens to be black telling rich white people what they want to hear about poor blacks. In any 15 minute political speech by the powers these days on diversity, the words “leadership” and “leader”are mentioned more times than I heard in six years in the military. The real leaders in the military never used the word even once to my memory, they were too busy being leaders. What if I do not want leaders, do not want to be led, or do not want to be a follower in diversity or in anything else? Am I not even allowed this simple request in the one life I have simply because I  am not in the right social or economic class?

Moreover, who are the Orwellian 1984 Outer Party bureaucrats and glorified bureaucrats called judges who will enforce integration and acceptance of diversity upon us? Will they be any different that those who enforced the unjust and unfair segregation of the past or who are enforcing the unjust and unfair legal systems of the present in such countries as North Korea, China, and the Philippines? According to the biography of Supreme Court Judge Sonia Maria Sotomayor, she started “dreaming” of being a judge when she was 10 years old. At 10, she started dreaming of sitting in judgment upon fellow humans, sending them to jail, ruining their lives mentally and financially and thus usually physically, and arbitrarily enforcing her personal ethics and morality upon humanity? What a sicko. No honest empathic person ever wants nor dreams of becoming a judge. They may do it out of a sense of duty but not as a dream job — unless you want power but are too cowardly to run for political office or want others to carry out your executions and do your killing for you. Our judges and government bureaucrats as individuals are no better — and no worse — than those of all past unjust legal cultures or of a North Korea or China. The only difference is they lack the power — at least for now — they would have in North Korea or China to enforce their personal ethics and morality upon others.

This is an unpopular idea but the separate but equal “diversity” concept of the early Roman Republic had it correct: let each tribe, culture, group, community, or whatever live separately and avoid each other if they want as long as they pay taxes, do not fight each other, and respond to the common needs that at that time were primarily defense but could be economic or infrastructure needs now. I would add the individual’s right to be left along to live and deal with whomever they want to this old school diversity concept. All, except the government, should be free to discriminate or integrate as they want. Separate but equal did not work in our history because the will, resources, and technology did not exist for such, it now does. This is not the Christian diversity that politically correct powers want without being Christians, but it is the best one should expect to achieve if one wants to skip the love and mercy required by Christian Divine Law and Natural Law to base diversity only on the monopoly of violence that is Positive and Human Law.