Is there a black elephant in the room?

Chicago, 1957: a couple who moved into an all-white neighborhood looking at graffiti in front of their home. [Source: Historic Photographs]

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…


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.

Do you believe in your Faith?


We have a lot of discussion today about the “persecution” of Christians. Modern “Christians” feel persecuted because the churches are closed, because they do not open together with the… other businesses, because there are no religious events while other events perhaps are allowed, because they will put a chip in us and the Antichrist will come, etc. All this – at least some – are legitimate questions that need to be addressed. However, there is a fine line between what concerns us as Christians and what is really important. And equally important is the way we express our concerns. A post? Two posts? Crying out loud (online) about upcoming doom? Because anxiety is good to have in moderation if needed, but a lot of anxiety eventually becomes funny.

Christianity will not die because COVID-19 has come. Not even because of the lockdown. Christianity has survived – to be more precise, it had FLOURISHED – in times of great persecution. If today’s concerned “Christians” were living in the times of the great persecutions, they would probably have died on the spot from a stroke before they had time to worry (or they would have changed their minds and denounce Christianity). Because, unfortunately, hypocrisy, like stupidity, seems to have no limits. From the time when some people went to church, we have now reached to a time when online hordes of Christians protest because the churches were closed. Not because they are anxious about Christianity per se. But because they are anxious that they do NOT appear to be Christians. And in today’s era phenomena are not just important, they are all we have left.

Hey you. You, who are protesting …

How many times do you pray at home? How honestly do you believe in God? How much do you need others to know that you believe?

I’m sorry to say it, but the comparison with Muslims is heartbreaking. No, I am not in favor of Islam as you (might) know. I am a Christian. But let’s be honest. While we are anxious and afraid that Christianity may be destroyed by “persecution” on Earth because due to a sudden WORLD VIRUS OUTBREAK and in the middle of GENERAL LOCKDOWN the churches are closed, the Muslims simply continues to believe and pray wherever they can.

No, Christianity is not going to die because of quarantine. It has already died inside you a long time ago…

You would crucify Him.


Nowadays, all Christians are so … Christians that they don’t even think about the obvious.

That if we lived in a time when Christ appeared, we would crucify Him too.

Think. A dirty beggar without a second cloth to wear, coming to you to tell you to forget all your beliefs and abandon anything holy you hold in respect to follow him.

If you wouldn’t crusify Him with your vote, you would definitely crucify Him with your tolerance. And you would laugh as he ascended Golgotha. That is, if you happened to pass by and you hadn’t gone for coffee. And you would definitely change the channel at night if the news happened to mention the event, because at the same time Masterchef would start or you would have to write a very Christian post on Facebook.

Accept your fall.

It is the first step to rise.

The hypocrisy of Ecology.


In the news today, the following made headlines:

Legendary teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg is causing waves again. This time, literally. She is currently sailing from Plymouth in England to the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York on a carbon-neutral, zero-emissions racing yacht. The trip should take about two weeks, so the schoolgirl hopes to make it in time for the climate change conference which starts on September 23. (source)

This gives me a great opportunity to talk about a very important subject.

Harmonia Philosophica has written long ago about the coercion of ecology. (search for the keyword “ecology” or “against ecology”) However it seems that propaganda of this new religion is spreading fast, so a new article is needed to get things straight.

But wait a minute!

Ecology is a religion?

You bet it is.

And the worst kind: a dogmatic and aggressive one! (No, Christianity is not dogmatic in the bad sense, again read Harmonia Philosophica for more on that)

Ecology uses fear to spread the message. “If we don’t do nothing we will die in ten years/ a generation/ 100 years” is a motto often used to make people aware that they should start believing now instead of tomorrow. Because tomorrow is too late. Of course such grave messages of destruction are spread for decades now and they constantly fail to deliver: the world hasn’t ended. In the beginning we had the threat of “global freezing”. (Really, check it out) When this didn’t manifest we went to the danger of “global warming”. And since this isn’t catchy anymore we are now in the phase of “climate change”. Which is nice and catchy. Oh, and without any danger of failing since – guess what – climate as anything else (including yourself as you read this) is changing!

What could go wrong, right?

And yet, many things are going wrong. The new religion isn’t gaining traction as the priests of ecology wish so. So more things need to be done.

Next technique any bad religion uses: guilt! Load people with guilt! And when you are over, load them with more guilt!

Who is responsible for the demise of the climate? Who else? YOU!

YOU destroyed the ice glaciers. Not the big companies who enjoy emitting thousands of tons of CO2 every second you try to think how to recycle better.

YOU destroyed the oceans. Not the big corporations which spill thousands of tons of waste every second you think about taking a cold shower so as not to spend energy and “save the planet”.

YOU destroyed the atmosphere. Not the thousands of nuclear weapons tests from all the great – now “ecological” – powers. Haven’t you heard the news? You destroyed the ozone layer with your refrigerator! The thousands of nuclear tests of the US, Russia and China just happened to be conducted around the same time.

Are you getting the message?

The whole conglomerates world is destroying the environment, but the priests of ecology want you to believe that you are the bad guy because you made a mistake and threw away paper in the metals recycle bin.

All in all: It is good to recycle. It is good to not throw away plastic in the ocean. But not because Ecology tells you so! But because humans should be living in harmony with the environment! The ecological movement has nothing to do with this as a philosophy, but more with the things I mentioned above. Trying to push you to do things which will at the end – surprise, surprise – will give these conglomerates more money!

More money by not pushing too much the companies be more ecological. After all, it is YOU who destroyed the environment, remember? Every company now tries to be ecological mainly by using its customers – “Bring us back your laptop and we will give you a new cheaper” (while we take all the parts from it, reuse them and make even more money without caring about the environment in our plant in China). More money by buying and selling CO2 rights. They even made a stock market for that! The possibilities are endless! (For the companies, you just have to take a cold shower, don’t forget)

It is a perfect plan.

A perfect scheme.

But who will be the front man?

In the beginning the conglomerates tried to use a man of their “own”. And failed. Al Gore was not the right person to convince people for the new religion of ecology. After all, he was a millionaire and obviously made more money with ecology that they could account for. So another solution was needed.

What’s best than a teenage girl?

So here we are today. Right when I thought propaganda had limits, I saw the article about the “legendary” teenager. This phase is so wrong and self-contradicting that if you don’t see it then you can stop reading right now.

And what does this teenager do? Traveling for two weeks on a boat to speak to clueless grown ups and enlighten them. (Guess what is the third tool of religions: Prophets) Get it? A teenage girl having money and resources to spend two weeks doing nothing (while other “not legendary” teenage girls and boys just read). A teenage girl having a boat to travel for two weeks. (while other “non legendary” girls and boys don’t have money to buy a book)

Do you see now?

The worse intentions can have the most noble of faces. Even if Greta is a great girl (and we have no reason to assume she is not) and has the best intentions (again, we have no reason to assume that she doesn’t), she is not the point of interest here! The system behind her is! (A system which potentially exploits her for all the reasons mentioned above)

Yes, I recycle!

Yes, I respect the environment!

But no, I am not an ecologist!

I just don’t have a boat…

Different. And yet the same!? [Shhhh! Homosexuality subject…]


While the US Supreme Court was considering two related cases involving the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, one major question informing that decision was whether scientific research had achieved consensus regarding how children of same-sex couples fare. Determining the extent of consensus has become a key aspect of how social science evidence and testimony is accepted by the courts. Scientists found that the literature on outcomes for children of same-sex parents is marked by scientific consensus that they experience “no differences” compared to children from other parental configurations. (1, 2)

So there it is.

Grow a child with a father and a mother.

Now CHANGE things.

Grow a child with two fathers.

Now tell them that everything is the SAME.

They will believe you.

You are a “scientist” after all.

And no, this has NOTHING to do with human rights, equality et cetera! All people have the same rights. Anyone can love whoever he/she wants. No one is against homosexuals here. I am just against trying to pass the abnormal as the new “normal”. As simple as that. Children are created the way Nature dictates. And this is what is “normal”. Anything different is exactly that: DIFFERENT! And hiding that under the rag does not make it go away…