Is there a black elephant in the room?

Many people are discussing these days the racism topic.

A black man – George Floyd – was some days ago killed due to – as it seems – police brutality. This sparked a series of protests some of which were violent.

People started to talk against the protests and that violence. Others responded that the violence had started actually from the police. But no matter the details, the question of whether racism is a problem in the US was prevalent in all discussions.

For me, this is an elephant sitting in the room.

All we have to do is see it.

But as in the elephant example, what I see is not what you see…

For some, there is no solid ‘proof’ of racism in the US. And to be fair to the other countries as well, I will extend this to all other countries: For those people who deny the existence of racism altogether, there is no solid evidence for racism against blacks in the West in general (cannot really speak for other countries). There is no ‘proof’ that this group of people is treated unfairly.

The arguments the proponents of this ‘There-is-no-racism’ view have, vary from wrong to ridiculous – with a strong tendency to the latter.

RELATED ARTICLE: The source of ethics

So for example in the case of George Floyd, I have seen many people asking “How do I know that the police officer did what he did because of racism? Perhaps he is doing the same to white people as well”. That could be a good counter-argument. If we had actually data to support it. If not (which is currently the case), then this counter-argument is just a generalized counter-argument based on ‘doubt’ which we anyway have for everything in life – even for things we see in front of our eyes.

Hey, it is raining.

(But how can I be sure that it rains?)

This counter argument used by those denying the existing racism against blacks (and gays and women etc) is the cornerstone of hypocrisy. They see something (in that case we even have a video) but they choose not to see it because of something else that… might be true. They do not know whether the police officer could do something like that to whites as well. They just assume it. And then based on that assumption, they build their theory.

Convenient is it not?

Sure is.

But simple things are never simple.

The denial of so many in the face of something so evident is based on something very fundamental in human thought: Our inability to prove (or accept the proof) of anything, unless we experience it. This is something constantly mentioned by Harmonia Philosophica, but with regards to science philosophy mainly. Here it is – wrongly – used to justify injustice. Yes, it is true that there can be no positive proof not only of racism in this case but of any other logical proposition of any kind.

The truth is a philosophically elusive notion and cannot be attained, even for the most trivial and fundamental of scientific beliefs. For every scientific theorem or theory is based on unapproved axioms. Change these axioms and you will reach to a different theory (if that sounds weird, then read more Harmonia Philosophica). So if it is not possible to even prove that 1+1=2 (really, even this is based on axioms), how could one prove that the death of a black man under police brutality was because of racism?

And yet, we know it.

People denying the obvious are in this case doing nothing more than using a loophole in our inherent thinking mechanism to deny what in other circumstanced they would accept at ease. It would be right to say “I don’t know” or “I am not sure”, if you indeed said that every time you are not sure about something. But as said above, we are never 100% sure about anything, nor can we be in any way.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why you can’t be an agnostic

So what is this?

How can we be sure?

The answer is already answered.

By your everyday actions.

By your everyday choices.

By life itself.

Life which transcends the theory and makes us open our eyes beyond the limits of philosophy. Because no matter how you “do not know” whether there is racism, you do choose to be afraid of a black running in the street. No matter how much you are not “sure” of, automatic face detection algorithms you design keep on detecting more black people as ‘criminals’. No matter how much you are not ‘sure’ that there is racism, you still need to revert to nonexistent hypotheses to prove that what you see was not true. Regardless of your inability to pinpoint racism against black people, you do feel weird when standing next to a black person. No matter whether you are – philosophically – certain that black people do have the same rights as other people, it is still true that we have a disturbingly extremely low representation of black people in high-level positions.

Because you see, the greatest problem with science per se, is its inability to testify for the obvious. Even when it is raining, there will always be possible to claim that everything is an illusion and even build a theory based on that illustrious assumption. (Why not? Scientists today even talk about multiple universes which we will never anyway see – and they even get paid for that research) Even when Achilles is running to overcome the turtle, philosophy will still be able to ‘prove’ that Achilles will never overcome it. And even when black people are dying outside, science will still struggle with statistical models to ‘prove’ whether there is racism or not…

So beware of people expressing ‘doubt’.

They are usually the ones with the greatest beliefs.

And when they close their books.

And when they walk outside…

They will be astounded to see…

That Achilles did overcome the turtle.

That the policeman did step on Floyd’s neck…

And some of them, some of them who still have a soul, will come to realize what they knew but they have forgotten. That whatever they know, is because they really don’t know anything at all…

Hey!

Who put that black elephant in the room?!

Important Notes

  • Similar to the argument “How can we know it?” is the opposite argument “But I can prove to you that there is no racism”. In such arguments people tend to use examples of how for example the police was once also brutal to a white person. This is the opposite of what was described above: As it is impossible to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, it is also very easy to claim that you have ‘proved’ something with the relevant assumptions. Again in that case, the very same fundamental limitation of science and our way of thinking is exploited: That whenever we think to prove something, we need to start from somewhere. And that somewhere is always a not-proved axiom/ assumption. With proper models and assumptions, one can even ‘prove’ that our universe does not exist.
  • No case is like the other. I have sure not covered all of the here. There are also cases which are similar to the case of black people suffering racism (e.g. women or gay people suffering discrimination) who are not also mentioned here. This is because the purpose of this post is not to generalize or prove anything. The are sites which do that in a much better way while providing all the necessary data for all these types and cases of racism and discrimination. The purpose of this article, since Harmonia Philosophica is a philosophy portal, is to show that philosophy and theory are good but up to a point. And from that point onward, life itself is much more important.
  • I have deliberately taken a stand not to refer to the violence in the protests during the previous days. Again, I believe there are many sites which cover these facts in an excellent and very professional manner. The goal of this article is to provide some philosophical insight. Nothing more. And, I hope, nothing less.

Racism, “black” people, hypocrisy…

LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling banned for life by NBA over racist comments. Which by the way where of the “black people” type. I suppose black people are not black. Calling them purple would do just fine. And I suppose everyone MUST like black and purple people. There is no room for NOT LIKING anyone. Black people, western people, chinese people, short people… And I suppose calling white people “white” is also racism. And surely saying that you do not like any kind of people is racism as well. You must like everyone! And I suppose you are not entitled to say such things NOT EVEN in PRIVATE conversations! In case someone has a tape recorder… (1)

Then you will face sanctions by everyone, including all those money-loving hypocrite people who just happen to “love black people” because they just bring them money (NBA). And from your ex-girlfriend who was with you because you had money but now remembered she just wants to publish a book and that she was not actually your… girlfriend! (2) Oh, and by a brothel owner! (3)

When you see someone being so picky about something, most of the times it is because he is not so… picky at other much more important things…

In the era where human life means nothing…
In the era where kids are killed with drones…
In the era where wars are fought for fun…
In the era where money rules everything…
In the era where black people are shown superficial respect just to be exploited…

Many “Sterlings” will fall.

Not because they said something no one else thought.
And certainly not because they DID something no one else did.
(especially in their multi-billion dollars circle)
And more certainly not because they said something no one would even believe they would say!
But because people love hypocrisy.
People love being fooled.
They know billionaires play with the lives of poor people.
They just want to be fooled that they don’t.
They know the whole structure of our society is based on DISCRIMINATION at all levels.
They just want to be fooled that it is not…

Discrimination IS a serious thing. Discrimination IS a bad thing.
But it is not just saying “I don’t like X people”.
Every time we think it is just that, we lose sight of its actual ugly face, which penetrates our society in every aspect.
Had Sterling not spoken, people would all still love him as the owner of a team with… black people.

Shhhh…
Be careful…
A tape recorder is near you…
Do what you want. But don’t say it…

WWII, conspiracies, UK and Nazis…

When I was a kid, I was fascinated by World War 2.

And I was even more fascinated by the various mysteries surrounding the great war.

Why did Hitler stop at Dunkirk?

Why did Hess fly to Britain?

Why did Hitler not invade UK?

The truth is most of the times right in front of your eyes. All you have to do is simply stare it in the eyes. If you have the courage to do so.

The truth is that…

Britain has had Nazi lovers in parliament or in high political places for a long time. From Nancy Astor (1) to Oswald Mosley (2) to Edward VIII (3, 4), to many other lords and dukes  (5), the long list of British fascist parties (6) and even current Member of Parliament with Nazi affiliations (7, 8, 9) shows how the ideology of Hitler was not contained to Germany alone as they want us to believe.

The British National Government’s basic line of close collaboration with Nazi Germany was a fact only a few days before the war, despite the rising differences and points of antagonism in a number of spheres of policy. (10) As one can read in the “International Press Correspondence, Volume 15, no 23, 1 June 1935”, after Hitler gave a major speech on foreign policy to the Reichstag on 21 May 1935, Baldwin, speaking officially for the British government, paid a tribute of welcome to the pronouncement and promised ‘the very closest attention in a spirit of sympathy’. The Times found it ‘reasonable and straightforward… the basis of a complete settlement’. The Daily Herald, of course, was foremost in welcoming Hitler’s speech as ‘a good basis… it is now for Great Britain to reply in the same spirit’. The Daily Mail found Hitler’s speech the height of European statesmanship.

Was Hess a lone “mad man” who just decided to go to Britain for… vacation? Could the no. 2 in 3rd Reich’s hierarchy just leave without Hitler knowing about it? Could he go into “enemy” territory without being sure that they will welcome him? Could someone be so STUPID so as to really ask such questions? (11)

The simple truth is that by the beginning of 1941 Hitler, in disregard of the advice of some of his generals, had decided that he could no longer put off his “holy war” against Russia. The attempt to knock out the Western democracies before turning to the East had failed. The alternative was an understanding with Great Britain which would leave Germany free to concentrate everything against Russia-a return, in some measure, to the basis of co-operation set up in Munich (12). Whatever Chamberlain and Daladier may have thought, the Germans had interpreted the Munich deal as a carte blanche for Nazi domination of Eastern Europe. The Allied guarantees to Poland and Rumania thereafter and their declaration of war, were indignantly denounced in Berlin as a democratic double-cross. (13)

And yes, Hess had RAF escort during his flight over Britain. (13)

Even today you can see dictators and Nazi-lovers at royal weddings. Yes, this is not something which has passed away. This is something we live in. They are the same people (Prince Philip) who hope to be reincarnated as a deadly virus” to help solve the population problem. (14) They are the same people who are pro-eugenics and true “ecologists”. (15)

Hitler stopped at Dunkerk so as to leave his British friends a chance.

Hitler sent Hess on a peace mission in agreement with his British friends.

Hitler did not invade UK because you do not invade friends. (and not because it was difficult, Hitler had gone even to Africa or the far end of Atlantic)

Hitler’s ideology had support from many people short before and even during World War II. An annoying truth which many people try to hide today. Could Hitler be just ONE example OUT OF THE MANY in his days? Could his evil not be so unique as some people want us to believe? No one could rise in power in any state in such a “closed” continent and done the things he done (concentration camps in Germany existing well BEFORE the war and everyone knew about it – unless they believe fairies took communists and other “disturbing elements” during the night for a walk in the forest) without the consent of all the great powers of the time.

Prince Harry can have Nazi uniforms (16, 17) but who cares?

Princess Michael’s father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, can go into US restaurants and talk against black people making noise next to his table telling them “Go back to the colonies” (18) but who cares?

Royals, dukes, lords, MPs…

The cycle of hypocrisy does not end.

Watching too many Hitler documentaries at Discovery Channel has turned our minds into pulp.

The dirtiest places, have the cleanest carpets…

Beverly Hills, racism, “racism”…

We do not like racism. We feel against those Beverly Hills bimbos who just cannot stand filthy poor people.

But question your self: Do you not like them better than all those pseudo-leftist ideology self-proclaimed “progressive” who SAY they like everyone and who CLAIM they are not racists but live in rich neighborhoods and big houses, doing anything BUT hanging out with the people they claim they like?

Hypocrisy is the quintessence of our civilization.

We like to fool our selves that we like everyone and yet we hang out only with a handful of people – most of the times people who are just LIKE us.

Maybe we should narrow the definition of “racism”. And broaden the definition of “hypocrite”.

Ban Hitler’s mustache!

A German artist prosecuted for performing Nazi salutes in what he said was an artistic gesture has been acquitted. [1]

How shallow can we be, to think that banning a specific way of saluting will be effective in establishing humanism…

Maybe we should also ban the mustache of Hitler…

Charlie Chaplin would have a great laugh about that!

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%