“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.

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”?

Can We Have Racism Without Having Racists?

According to the powers-that-be, the recent court decision of NAACP et al v. Patrick McCrory et al from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit striking down North Carolina’s voter I.D. law by reversing a lower federal district court decision approving the law proves that racism against blacks is still systematic. I do not care and really there is no answer to the question as to whether the North Carolina law was or was not a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The judges could have gone either way and the conclusion would be “law.” As I have repeatedly stated, the law as justice is an illusion, it is really a monopoly of power by those in power to enforce their ethics — their “ought”. As could have been predicted with great accuracy from day one of judge assignment to hear the case, the democratic appointed judges of the 4th Circuit voted one way and the republican appointed district court judge voted the opposite way. What bothers me is that this arbitrary partisan decision by a bunch of hack political appointees is used as a substantive argument for systematic racism. The 4th Circuit decision states no one involved acted with racist motives, so how can you have racism without having racists?

The McCrory decision is more than 80 pages long but as customary in modern legal culture, about 79 pages are verbiage either saying nothing of substance or missing the substance of what is going on. According to the three honorable justices of the Fourth Circuit who ruled North Carolina’s recently legislatively passed voter I.D. laws to be a violation of the Voting Rights Act, the following facts are undisputed:
1. Unlike postbellum and Jim Crow voting laws specifically intended to stop black voters from voting based on racism, that is based on the belief that people with black skin color are too mentally inferior to vote, the present voter laws are “not mean[t], and we [the court] do not suggest, that any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group” — that is, the legislators and governor are not racists.
2. The subject voter laws passed by the Republican North Carolina legislature and governor was intended for partisan purposes “to the benefit of one political party and to the disadvantage of the other”: to lower the democratic voter turnout. Since most North Carolina blacks are democrats, this partisan intent would “most heavily affect African Americans” by reducing their voter turnout.
Thus according to the Court, “intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose”. That is, by discriminating against democrats, since most blacks are democrats, by semantic necessity they are discriminating against blacks and therefore the law violates the Voting Rights Act.

So, the historical and factual — not purely semantic — situation is that North Carolina had racist postbellum and Jim Crow Southern Democrats who hated blacks and decided to use voter laws to stop black voters from voting Republican (after the Civil War most Southern Blacks were Republican). It now has Southern Republicans who are not racist but are using voter laws to stop Democrats from voting Democratic (this now includes most Southern Blacks due to the realignment of the parties in the South following the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s). So, success! The politicians are treating black democrats as they would white democrats — factual equality is achieved as to politicians’ cynical maneuvering of voting laws. We can now concentrate on important issues such as why politicians are wasting time on such political maneuvering given our country’s difficulties or, given those difficulties, whether to start creating universal qualifications for voting instead of letting anyone who can show up anywhere near the voting booth vote. Yet, no, there is still racism?

Regardless of whether or not there is a Voting Rights Act violation, this concept that racism can exist without racists is another example of New School Racism. According to Mr. Coates, “race is the child of racism, not the father.” Though his writing never makes clear what he means by this dogma, my conclusion is that he means to say it is racism that sees race in the world, race is a construct of the racist mind not of any realistic or pragmatic mind. According to the honorable Fourth Circuit, the Southern Republicans who passed this new voting law are not racists, they just hate the Democratic Party and Democrats regardless of skin color. The state officials did not bring race into the voting law through a belief that blacks are mentally inferior; they made a partisan decision to stick it to democrats based on their belief that democrats are inferior. They are treating all democrats, whether white or black, as equally inferior and as usual with politics and politicians they will do whatever they can to stop the opposing politics and politicians from winning elections.

If “race is the child of racism, not the father”, who are the racists in the McCrory case? Was race brought into it by the Court and its interpretation of the law? The three judges who issued the Fourth Circuit McCrory opinion were democratic appointees, either by Clinton or Obama, while the District Court judge who approved the voter law at issue was a republican Bush appointee. Is the more likely explanation based on human nature that a panel of Democratic judges did not like the fact that Republicans were trying to reduce Democratic voter turnout and instead of just saying so they used “race” as a smokescreen to hide this unarticulated premise of their reasoning? If “race” truly “is the child of racism”, the racists are the three democratic judges of the Fourth Circuit who brought racism into a case in which their own admitted undisputed facts state there are no racists.

In the philosophy of language there are paradoxes such as the Ship of Theseus going back to ancient Greek philosophy trying to make sense of the meaning of words that are supposed to involve identity. Modern versions are the paradoxes of George Washington’s Axe and of the murder weapon. If a museum exhibited an axe once owed and used by George Washington to cut down his famous cherry tree but then because of wear and tear had its handle and head replaced over time, is it still “George Washington’s axe”. If an archaeologist finds the discarded handle and head and reassembles them, is that “George Washington’s axe?” A murderer uses an axe for the crime but before being caught, over time, replaces the handle and then the head. Is it still the murder weapon?

These would not be paradoxes if they state, “George Washington’s axe” had its handle replaced by a gas motor and its head by a chain — in this case, it would be his chainsaw. Same with the murder weapon; it would no longer be an axe but a murderer’s chainsaw. This is true regardless of their still being used to cut wood. If you eat oranges because you hate apples, you are an apple hater. If you eat oranges because oranges have much more potassium as well as more Vitamin C and folate than apples, then you are not an apple hater but an orange lover. If you get the racist out of racism, regardless of the motives and any adverse results to anybody’s interests from the acts motivated, the acts are not motivated by racism and there is no racism. If you call it racism anyway to help you gain power at the expense of dealing with more important difficulties faced by our country, you are a new school racist with the same sense of entitlement as old school racists but unfortunately much more subtle and difficult to see, understand, and remedy because of the 80 pages of trees hiding the forest.

New School Racism / Part IV

I was going to end this topic and wait for September to add additional contemplation as I said I would in my last submission but happened to see an article in the Boston Globe this morning directly related to this topic of the developing new school racism that instinctively is too funny for me to pass on without comment. It was entitled “A Sad Day for Late Night” by a Renee Graham complaining of the recent cancellation of Larry Wilmore’s “Nightly Show” on Comedy Central. For those that are unfamiliar with the show, Larry Wilmore is the comic (at least he calls himself a comic, whether he was ever actually funny is a separate issue) who took over the television spot left open by Stephen Colbert ending the “Colbert Report” by moving to CBS to start “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”.

For those not familiar with Stephen Colbert, it is important to tell you that the mainstream CBS Late Show with him is nothing like the Colbert Report and the latter was in a completely different genre. The Colbert Report was complete, total, high art satire — the satire was so subtle and done so well that many times the guests and people being satirized did not even know they were being satirized. During one year of his show, congressional leaders barred their members from appearing on the Colbert Report because they were constantly looking like idiots during his questioning of them as part of a satire called “Better Know a District”. I admittedly loved the show, watched the premier of his Late Show and his fall from grace, and have not seen the Late Show again and do not intend to see it again — another example in the battle against the powers of “how the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished”.

Ms. Graham’s thesis is that the Nightly Show was cancelled because of Larry Wilmore’s “unabashed blackness”. “Unabashed blackness”? What the hell does that mean? Since he was cancelled because of unabashed blackness, does that meet that the multimillionaire black comics from Redd Fox and Flip Wilson to Kevin Hart, Chris Rock, and many more succeeded because of abashed blackness?

I tried watching Larry Wilmore and the Nightly Show hoping that Colbert had told him to “take up our quarrel with the foe: to you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high.” Instead, what I got was a nice guy Larry Wilmore having politically correct guests stating the usual politically correct ideas in as non-offensive a way as possible. What was really sad is when he actually came anywhere near an actual new idea, comment, or satire, he would immediately regret it and apologize! For example, during one episode, while discussing black fatherhood Wilmore referenced a statistic that fewer black women were getting married and then made the following joke: “Is it because black women are too bossy?” This is not even a new joke. Richard Pryor, the early nightclub Chris Rock, and many other black comics had and to this day have entire routines on this comic ridicule of black women that almost always leads into a ridicule of “white women” as being too easy. Wilmore had immediately to apologize for this joke and then repeated his apology the next night saying, “we love you” — otherwise he probably would have been cancelled a long time ago. He was always making apologies, not for not being funny which is the only sin for which comics should apologize, but for actually trying to be funny. I have never seen a comic apologize for a joke except for Don Rickles who would use an apology as a setup for much worse ridicule. So, is being a comic wimp “unabashed blackness” and Chris Rock and the rest are really white comics?

For anyone unfamiliar with the Boston Globe, you need to know that it is Boston’s brahmin newspaper preferred by New England brahmin Yankees over its opposition the lowbred, uncouth, working class Boston Herald. (This situation of only two newspapers is new school. Growing up in Chicago, we had several working class newspapers and several opposition brahmin papers to choose from. Now, you must surf the internet to get any diversity of opinion on any news.)

I have not been able to find out much about Ms. Renee Graham except that she is a black woman and the Globe lists her as a freelance contributor and pop culture critic. Do not know to what pop culture they are referring but it certainly must not be comedy pop culture. I have looked up her articles available on the internet and they are the usual politically correct droning with not one containing any original or new idea on any topic. No doubt, given that Ms. Graham works for the Boston Globe, she has succeeded in life — like Mr. Coates — by telling rich white people what they what to hear and being their black friend.

What is sad or funny about Ms. Graham’s topic is that while making the false accusation that Mr. Wilmore was cancelled because he was black, neither she nor any “pop culture” critic is doing anything about the virtual lynching of a black comic Bill Crosby based on mainly white women’s complains that he raped them, some accusations going back to supposed events of 40 years ago. Bill Crosby is the working class kid from Philadelphia who worked his way up not only to being a pioneer for black comics as role models instead of renegades but also with the television show I Spy became the first black actor to have a starring role in a weekly dramatic television series. He deserves better than the ridicule and treatment he is receiving for what may turn out to be false allegations and at worse may be unfortunately what was accepted procedure in Hollywood and television at the time by those in power and by women who wanted power. I doubt Crosby would be treated as he is by “pop culture” if he was an upper class rich male in the Kennedy family. Ted Kennedy drowned one of his late night lady friends (Ms. Mary Jo Kopechne) at Chappaquiddick, got away with it through his family and political connections, and then lived his life and ended it as a politically correct friend of liberated black and white women despite his and his family’s history of treating them and all their female acquaintances and especially the female members of their families like shit in their personal relationships with them.

The reasonable conclusion is that what Ms. Graham means by “unabashed blackness” is that Mr. Wilmore acted like politically correct Yankee brahmins attending an afternoon tea in which nothing is said that may make anyone think or feel uncomfortable so that all can go home satisfied with themselves and sleep well at night knowing they are perfect. In short, “unabashed blackness” is the same as “abashed whiteness”. Without doubt, Ms. Graham is a new school racist but deludes herself and her readers into believing they are not — this is the new harm and danger of new school racism.

New School Racism / Part III

That new school racism is an affirmative, social technique to maintain our present class power structure is exemplified by Colin Powell’s book It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership and his “13 life rules for any future leader”. As I mentioned earlier and as anyone who actually studies Mr. Powell’s life would conclude, Colin Powell was always a politician who put his personal career first — even while in the military as is true of most modern career military commissioned officers. When this country needed leadership from him the most, he abandoned us to go on to his multimillion dollar salary corporate officer and consulting jobs. Basically, his life’s guiding principles were to follow orders, do not make waves or disrupt the powers, and use the fact that he was black both as a means to succeed and as a defense and accusation against anyone that attacks his life’s guiding principles. Through these simple three rules, he has achieved upper class Outer Party and Inner Party status in life with the right to look down on hoi polloi and enforce his ethics and morality upon society — the power that defines the powers-that-be. Since he is not an honest leader willing to admit to these simple rules, he gives the following fabricated thirteen rules supposedly derived from his military experience and leadership to hide the reality of his forest behind a bunch of trees:
Rule 1: It Ain’t as Bad as You Think! It Will Look Better in the Morning!
Rule 2: Get Mad Then Get Over It!
Rule 3: Avoid Having Your Ego so Close to your Position that When Your Position Falls, Your Ego Goes With It!
Rule 4: It Can be Done!
Rule 5: Be Careful What You Choose! You May Get It!
Rule 6: Don’t Let Adverse Facts Stand in the Way of a Good Decision.
Rule 7: You Can’t Make Someone Else’s Decisions! You Shouldn’t Let Someone Else Make Yours!
Rule 8: Check Small Things!
Rule 9: Share Credit!
Rule 10: Remain calm! Be kind!
Rule 11: Have a Vision! Be Demanding!
Rule 12: Don’t take counsel of your fears or naysayers!
Rule 13: Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier!

Nice platitudes that can be applied to almost anything in life. The fact that he violated Rules 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 when it was most necessary to follow them does not seem to matter.

What anyone with military experience or even anyone who has read military history would immediately notice about these 13 rules is that they have nothing to do with leadership. As every successful military leader from Alexander the Great to George Patton and from the lowest ensign/2nd lieutenant to the highest field commander instinctively knew or learned the hard way is that there are only three rules for leadership: 1) do not ask your followers to risk anything you have not or would not risk; 2) do not respect your life any more than the lives of your followers; 3) competence. With these simple three rules, one from the lowest rank in society will be not only a leader but could become an emperor given the right circumstances and times.

The three historically derived leadership rules of the previous paragraph would negate all corporate management and political “leadership” since the start of the Vietnam War. It is not leadership to run a corporation on the backs of others while you know that win or lose you will walk away with millions. It is not leadership to risk wars so that others can do your killing for you though you would be too much of a coward to do it yourself. It is not leadership to use laws and lawyers to amass an inherited fortune or an “investment” fortune that gives 1% of the population 80% of the wealth generated by that population.

On the other hand, Powell’s thirteen leadership rules enforce all corporate management and political “leadership” since the end of the Vietnam War — even if the rules were followed though violating them when necessary for achieving personal power seems to be implicit in the rules as Powell’s life admits. Powell has given all present corporate and political powers a normative and intellectual foundation to justify the status quo power structure and thus his book is a best seller. By attacking him for this hypocrisy, he would say and his fellow leaders of the black community would say that I am a racist in the same way they claim that any ridicule of Obama is racist.

Such is the substantive difference of the new racism. For further example:

— Susan Rice, despite being the product of Washington DC elite society and private schools, must be a diverse “idea” person added to the national security staff because she is black.

— Oprah Winfrey is not a conn artist but an ethical authority figure and role model because she is black.

— Obama deserves a Nobel Peace Prize and cannot be considered a “meet the new boss same as the old boss” politician because he is black.

— Colin Powell is not just another corporate CEO concerned only with his career because he is black.

— Attorney Generals Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder are not just a bunch of political hack bagmen for the politicians that appointed them but civil rights defenders and leaders because they are black.

This is all bullshit. These new “leaders” who happen to be black want the same as previous “leaders” who were white: power, especially power over others. This new racism is worse than any old school racism because it hides as ethics, morality, and good; it destroys lives physically and unnecessarily but hides behind a necessity of ethics, morality, and good.

Much worse, it destroys the human soul because it makes words such as morality and good meaningless even on the individual level that may be the only place these words have any meaning. At least in old school racism, even the racist knew and admitted to being a racist — in fact, they were explicitly proud of it. With new school racism, no one admits to it; instead, they claim the higher ground of ethics and morality and goodness for hiding what they are, and thus are deluding themselves as to their own nature.

Well, f–ck them. If they are going to use new school racism to succeed, I will become a new school racist in opposition given that this is the only option I have as an outcaste. Just as John F. Kennedy in order to become president had to go around proving to the powers that he was not really a devote Roman Catholic but one of them, from now on I will expect anyone running for political office or corporate “leadership” to prove to me that they are not really black in order to get my support or willingness to follow their “leadership”. Am I a racist for requiring such proof? Yes I am, but at least I have the integrity to be honest about it unlike the creators of this new school racism that delude society and themselves and hide their true nature behind rules of “ethics” that really as with law are just excuses for their achieving power over others.

In light of becoming a new school racist, I am unilaterally declaring September 2016 to be White History Month and hopefully soon will be publishing about great white moments and great white persons in history who have improved life for the world’s poor and working classes — white, black, male, female, or whatever — and did so without hiding behind racist fake rules. “Integrity has no need of rules”, Albert Camus.

New School Racism / Part II

Regardless of the power of developing new school racism and its gaining of strength as social ethics, I do not want to become an old school racist because such would defeat the purpose of my hopeless battle against the necessary, omnipresent power of classicism. As discussed in a previous blog, racism based on skin color is a relatively new phenomenon in human history. Even as late as the 20th Century, racism based on arbitrary culture and social distinctions such as Aryan and Non-Aryan caused manyfold more suffering in the world than arbitrary skin color racism. However, the social creation of skin color racism has the same foundation as all arbitrary racism: it derives from the powers’ need to make sure that the lower classes are too busy struggling among themselves to challenge the powers. The social construct of racism was best described by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the poor sharecropper’s son who worked, conned, and connived his way up through college, a teaching career, politics, and then the presidency to create the Great Society programs of the 60’s for which all poor, white or black, should be grateful — though it is important he not be given credit for his work as he was white Southern trash, rather the credit should go to the upper class elitist Ivy League Kennedys from Massachusetts and their Camelot royalty delusion. President Johnson said as follows:

I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

Once again, the clear insight of an intelligent poor man exceeds in substance and quality all the scholarship of academics — the little there is on American classism.


So, what about new school racism practiced by our present upper class elites such as Colin Powell, President Obama and his groupies, Susan Rice, Oprah Winfrey, Ta-Nehisi Coates and so forth? Does it have the same foundation and purpose? Sure it does. If you critically or even common sensically based on reality and life experience analyze any example of it, you will see the result is the same:
— Mr. Coates, according to him the product of free private and public education from pre-K to five years of college, receives a genius award for ridiculing education as “only an opportunity to discipline the body”, that involves “writing between the lines”, “copying the directions legibly”, and “memorizing theorems”; he writes “[t]hey were concerned with compliance” and “Algebra, Biology, English” are just excuses for “discipline.” This ridicule he directs to young black men who he must know stand a 60% chance of landing in jail if they drop out of high school. If school is nothing but discipline, Coates should try working for a living for once in his life and then perhaps he would be better prepared to instruct others on their need for the discipline given by education instead of the alternative discipline provided by the prison system.
— “Black Lives Matter” expects, fosters, and incites protests when a police officer accidentally kills a black man, even if the officer was black, the suspect was a criminal, and even if the protests result in the burning and destruction of businesses serving poor neighborhoods. However, this group and the so-called leaders of the black community that support it expect, foster, and incite nothing over the undisputed fact that young black males are engaged in essentially self genocide in this country killing each other by the thousands each year and abandoning their families to be brought up in single parent households. (This contradiction exists even though Black Lives Matter has the time to take a political position against Israel, WTF?).
— The so-called leaders of the black community constantly cry for “civil rights” protection, yet the Obama administration, its attorney generals, and foreign policy advisors such as Susan Rice have done more than even the Cold War did to make meaningless supposed constitutionally protected civil liberties. More than any previous administration, they fought a war on whistle blowers of government dishonesty and outright corruption making it even harder to learn of either — as if it was not hard enough before. Even Obama’s simple pledge to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with its claim of right to indefinite detention without trial that he could have accomplished by executive order as commander in chief failed because he is too much of a political coward to do it. At the same time, Obama claims the right as President to kill United States citizens by drones simply by executive order — no prior President not even the Bush administration ever claimed this right. Obama has gone further than Bush with his claim of right to expanding the domestic national security state. The recent case of Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier is a personal issue with me. This sailor is looking at possibly four years in jail for being caught with photos of his boat’s engineroom considered by the Obama Justice Department to be “classified” material though all the details in these photos can be found in Jane’s Fighting Ships — the same Justice Department that has declined to prosecute our apparent future president Hillary Clinton for having hundreds if not thousands of “top secret” material in her personal files. The handful of photos that I have of my shipmates from my engineroom and other watchstations are about the only good memories I have of my military service. What a bunch of assholes.


Any poor white trash with even half-a-brain would look at this ridicule of education; simultaneous demand for police protection while also physically bashing police officers and inciting the destruction of poor neighborhoods and families (even white trash respect their own families and neighborhoods); and the hypocritical stance on their “rights” and would then through innocent ignorance conclude that “at the bottom of it, even the lowest white man must be better than the best colored man”, ergo we have a racist.

So this new school racism propagated by the new powers of our Technological Society is based on and serves the same social need of the old school racism, but does it do more? As I will discuss next, yes it does. At least in old school racism, even the racist knew and admitted to being a racist — in fact, they boasted about it. Whereas old school racism only created disunity among the lower classes, new school racism serves to create a normative basis or social construct justifying our present status quo social classes — it affirmatively supports and enforces classism not just maintains it. It does so implicitly through what it calls “ethics”, instead of explicitly through Jim Crow and other laws. In an essential way, this is much more dangerous because it is not as obvious since there is no written or published laws or other explicit enforcement of this new racism out there to attack. Being forced to ride in the back of the bus because of codified law based on your skin color is obvious racism and an obvious fight with obvious opponents. Being forced to live as a wage slave or as an unemployable uneducated social dependent because professional, political, and social “ethics” requires one live as such is not an obvious fight with obvious opponents, moreover it makes anyone who starts such a fight seem unethical, evil, or ugly while the opponents seem and claim to be the “good”.