The Non-Centre of Human Perception and the Limitations of Linear Logic

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Before the ‘Big Bang’, space and time did not exist. Following the ‘Big Bang’, time and space existed simultaneously – everywhere. It is after the ‘Big Bang’ event that human logic and reason came into being (once the human brain had evolved to generate logic and reason). In reality, everything is ‘relative’ to the observer (as Einstein observed), and the Earth is the centre of human perception when the universe is observed (because the Earth is where humanity happens to be), but this does not mean that Earth is the centre of the observable universe. The universe appears to be expanding by 1 light year per year – but in reality it is expanding faster than light can travel (the dark energy at the edge of universe is travelling faster than light). It is probably correct to state that human perception has no definite ‘centre’, and that notions of ‘individuality’ and ‘I-ness’ are merely transitory social-cultural constructs, that have no meaning within universal reality. Linear logic is vitally important for the development and progression of human science and understanding, but prior to the ‘Big Bang’ – during the existence of the ‘initial singularity’ – the conditions that generate and support human logic did not yet exist, and cannot be defined, understood or limited to human logic today. This is why linear logic can be used in a reverse manner, working backwards toward the point of the ‘Bing Bang’ in time and space, but which cannot ‘penetrate’ the ‘Big Bang’ with conventional reason, and directly perceive that state which existed a moment before the ‘Big Bang’. The human brain appears to have evolved to perceive the observable universe in a manner that directly represents the time-space conditions that came into being directly after the ‘Big Bang’ – with the caveat that logic and reason is being used to try to understand that state of reality which immediately preceded the ‘Big Bang’, conditions that cannot be adequately defined (or ‘limited’) by logic and reason. The human brain did not exist during or prior to the ‘Big Bang’, and so did not evolve the perceptual abilities to directly understand this experience. In reality, human logic and reason is being used ‘after the fact’, to understand conditions that are not suited to its own evolutionary (developmental) circumstance. This suggests that Einstein’s theory of general relativity is correct only in the ‘post-Bing Bang’ state (i.e. the universe we all inhabit), but breaks down both during and immediately prior to the ‘Big Bang’. Ironically, it is by the use of logic and reason that this understanding is arrived at, and it could be that a ‘new’ way of using the human brain-mind nexus is just around the next evolutionary corner, as infinity has no discernible ‘centre’.

Why ‘Inner’ Science?

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

All science, although it manifests through the material plane, originates within the human mind. This is a concrete fact as it is the agency of human consciousness that has perceived worldly phenomena, logically ordered that data, and eventually calculated, extrapolated and elucidated reliable theories and understanding about how the universe operates, how it came into existence, and its developmental history has unfold. Of course, the human mind and body is (and remains) fully part of this evolutionary process, and the fact that the mind has been able to transition from a mode of pure instinct for survival, to a state of profound observational contemplation, is testament to this fact. Generally speaking, science is the ordering of thought when the mind is engaged in observing the physical world and its processes. Just as the physical world unfolds according to discernible laws, the thought processes can be gathered together, focused, and directed in a particular cognitive direction – this consistent ‘direction’ is termed ‘logic’ – as the thought process and patterns that unfold in the head take on the the structure and direction of the material processes. In a very real sense, the inner mind becomes a tangible reflection of the functioning of the outer world. When there is a ‘disconnect’ between the inner mind and the outer world, the human state of existence is said to be ‘mythic’, or ‘illogical’ in nature. This is because the human mind remains ‘unaware’ of how the external world is operating, is unable to ‘reflect’ that operation, and instead subjects existence to being defined through the faculty of ‘imagination’. This is the religious view of the world which is premised upon the ‘mystery’ of ‘not knowing’.

Inner science is the acknowledgement of the importance of the human brain and its ‘mind’ function. This includes not only viewing the world in a logical manner (which is required if humanity is to progress its existence), but also includes the study of the ‘illogical’ or ‘religious’ mind-set. Certainly, it must be stated that the faculty of ‘imagination’ is not an error, and has served a very important purpose within human evolutionary development. In fact, although religion is generally inverted in mind-set (i.e. prone to set the cart before the horse when assessing reality), nevertheless, religion and religious beliefs (of whatever kind), were the first human efforts to rise above the animal kingdom, and the requirement for survival through an often ‘brutal’ manifestation of instinct. This function of religion also introduced the earliest concepts of ‘law’ where none existed, and the first ideas of ‘altruism’, whereby other humans (and animals) might be treated with compassion and understanding – simply because they were other living beings. In this respect, the shift from ‘instinct’ to ‘religion’ was a very important evolutionary development that still has important ramifications for humanity today, even when fully acknowledging the secularisation of the West and other areas of the world.

The implications are that formal logic grew-out of human religious thinking, as the understanding of the world developed over long periods of time. In India, for instance the Buddha reformed Brahmanism into a new and logical philosophy that emphasised the detailed assessment of human perception existing within a physical world. This development was nothing short of the creation of the science of perception. In ancient Greece, formal logic developed out of polytheism. In the Middle East, Jesus Christ rejected various aspects of Jewish Scripture, and created if not exactly a logical system of thought, certainly a view of reality that moved away from the dogma of theology (despite the later Christian Church re-asserting the primacy of theological interpretations – even if only spuriously connected with Christ). The point is that Christianity appears to have both hindered the development of the Western mind, whilst simultaneously preparing it for the resurgence of secular Greek logic during the renaissance – fuelled as it was by the rediscovered ancient Greek texts preserved in the Islamic libraries of Byzantine and elsewhere. Islam, of course, has always valued knowledge and wisdom without compromising its theological base, which has accommodated other ways of viewing the world. However, even the old religions, as superstitious as they are, should not be entirely dismissed out of hand, although I would stress that a religion should not seek or possess political power in its own right, as this sphere of activity has nothing to do with the achievement of inner peace.

The crux of the matter is this; as the human mind is the area through which logic and understanding emerge, it is within the best interests of humanity to make a study of this inner terrain without falling into ‘subjectivism’, or ‘myth’. This requires a certain strength of being whereby an inner explorer is like a cosmonaut heading to the stars, but is involved in the intimate and detailed exploration and mapping of nothing less than the ‘psychic’ fabric of the mind. I suspect that this exploration will only add to the power of objective thinking and analysis, and thereby ‘strengthen’ the human potential for generating scientific thought. Anyone can embark on this journey simply by sitting quietly and ‘looking’ within’. What do you see? Write it down and keep detailed notes of your experience. Later, objectively look through your notes and learn to distinguish between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ observations. In this way the psychic phenomena experienced in the mind serves as the most direct form of experiential data. This type of exploration maybe viewed as ‘introspective’, and of course it is, but when deliberately performed as a part of the objective development of science, its process takes on an entirely ‘new’ meaning, and its conclusions maybe used to enhance human understanding of the mind, body and environment.

London: Gay Pride (8.7.2017)

Gay Pride

A few years ago, me and Gee – with a young Mei-An – took part in the Gay Pride Parade through London, marching with the UNITE Bus. This year, with our new daughter – Kai-lin – we decided to attend all the activities happening all around the Parade. The whole of London was filled with the Rainbow Flag and unbridled love!  London was brought to an absolute stand-still and all went very well.

20170708_135053

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

20170708_134149

20170708_134332

20170708_134809

20170708_134454

20170708_135540

20170708_140543

20170708_135547

20170708_134544

20170708_142108

20170708_142124

20170708_155517

20170708_155522

20170708_155535

20170708_160109

20170708_160138

20170708_160338

20170708_160417

20170708_161029

20170708_161102

20170708_163302

20170708_163449

20170708_163452

An Atheist God (Email: 5.7.2017)

aChrist-01
Dear A
As far as I am aware – Christians meditate all the time! They meditate and contemplate God’s unquestioning love and mercy as shown through the life of Jesus and his disciples (and the saints). Of course, it does depend upon the type of Christian – the C of E for instance, often focuses upon political power and money in much the same way as the Roman Catholics – but my Christian monastic friends are busy trying to empty themselves of ego so as to become a purified vessel to receive God’s grace – which may or may not happen – they tell me! Anyway, the bible seems to say that what is good for man is not good for God – meaning personal sacrifice is on the agenda. I have Christians friends who are atheist because they do not believe in the church definition of a god.  The god they realise is far greater. Every so often I also meet an old Christian abbot who likes to sit with me in the garden and discuss Marx and Buddha. he agrees with both narratives. If that is not a gong-an, I don’t now what is!  One thing is for certain, the rubbish the church spills out to the laity is certainly not worthy of the god they worship, nor the sincerity of those who attend. As I am unburdened by belief, I see through the schemes and scenarios concocted by those who would control us. Although not a Christian in much the same way as I am not a Buddhist – there is a certain something holding everything together. Of course, it could well be the lack of structure.
With Metra
Adrian
PS: Off to the Ukrainian Embassy later – to give some fascists a kicking!

A Non-Threatening Mystery

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The problem with the agency of ‘mystery’ as a conveyor of meaning, is that it is premised upon ‘not knowing’. This means that in the process of acquiring certainty, uncertainty becomes a prime mover. This differs from modern science in as much as the method of knowledge acquisition is dependent upon the eradication of ‘uncertainty’, as a means to secure ‘certainty’. Of course, a scientific mystery is different from a religious mystery in as much as it indicates an area of research not yet clarified through logical investigation. A religious mystery, on the other hand, provides a type of emotional support lacking in the scientific method, but does not supply a similar robust intellectual response. Yes, theology can be sophisticated, meandering, complicated, obscure and dogmatic, but it can never be scientifically ‘proven’ to be correct or to even exist – but such is the nature of reality. For some, for instance, the prospect of space travel can appear mysterious because it is unknown, but this does not mean that it is ‘unknowable’. Religion, by its very nature, is known only through its ‘unknowable’ nature, and herein lies its attraction for many people. It is not a matter of being ‘anti-religious’, but rather a matter of understanding the difference in how the human mind functions within the two systems under discussion. The problem with theistic rapture, is that the experiencer can stay in a dark cave for decades, and end his or her life staring at what is believed to be the divine, whilst contributing nothing to the scientific development of humanity. Poverty, illness, famine, drought, illiteracy and homelessness are not resolved by this approach to self-absorption. Although somekind of inner freedom is hinted at, nothing changes on the outer plain. Science, strictly speaking, does not require religion to function, and the same can be said for religion and its relationship to science. Both systems exist in parallel, but the battle in recent centuries has been which paradigm should direct human affairs – and secular science has proven its material worth by making human life better. Of course, with regards to the technologically-led destructive nature of the arms industry, a case can be made to suggest that science (at least in part), has contributed immeasurably to the over-all suffering of humanity, quite often in some of the most brutal ways imaginable. This criticism of science (and one of its uses) is undoubtedly true. However, the monopoly upon social destruction is not owned exclusively by science, as the Christian religion has had its fair share of committing mass atrocities over the last thousand years or so (the same observation and criticism can be equally levelled at numerous other religions). Perhaps it is better to state that humanity has a thread running through its genetic programming that has the capacity for immense violence, and that this capacity has been activated and operated in a vicious manner at various stages of its evolutionary development. This being the case, it is this propensity for violence that needs to be developed out of the human system as a means to secure a better future. This is where the various peace-orientated ideals contained within most religions and spiritual paths can be useful for the further evolution of humanity. This need not clash with the scientific paradigm, but exist peacefully alongside it. Although science may pursue a non-religious narrative, this does not necessarily mean that science is ‘anti-religious’. In reality, as religion cannot be ‘measured’ or ‘quantified’, it is of no interest to the scientific method, and exists outside of it. As science does not operate through the agency of ‘faith’, religionists should have no opinion about it, and yet the world is full of individuals that purport to support religion or science from a diametrically opposing position. This is not useful or helpful for the development of humanity, but this is not the complete story, as many religionists today study science, and many otherwise hard-nosed scientists profess a religious faith outside the laboratory. An appreciation of nature, and the sheer randomness of its creation and functionality maybe termed a non-threatening mystery that does not compromise the material essence of modern science. From the scientific perspective, religion can be explained scientifically (through the auspices of psychology and psychiatry, as well as secular philosophy), and need not necessarily be an issue that requires confronting, even if it does not obviously contribute toward the scientific method.

Chinese Syncretism & Hakka Taiping Uprising (Email)

0000000000000

Email to ‘AS’ on the 3.9.2016

Dear Venerable
Thank you for your interesting email.
Through the historical habit of ‘syncretism’ in China, radically different and representative spiritual or material elements can be ‘aligned’ (either temporarily or permanently), so that an ‘intersection’ between different philosophical schools can be achieved.  The point of this was to remove the the potential for violence between competing socio-spiritual entities.  This policy sometimes when individual emperors launched pogroms either against Buddhism or Daoism (depending on which they supported, or opposed).  In the 19th century, the Hakka people rose-up against the Qing Dynasty (Taiping Uprising), combining Missionary Christianity, with Chinese Cosmology – with a ‘new’ Chinese ‘Son of God’.  Of course, the Western churches took exception to this and provided the non-Christian Qing Dynasty with the modern weapons to defeat the formerly victorious Hakka Armies.  Shen () corresponds to the realisation of expansive and all-embracing space (as described in both Daoist and Buddhist teachings).  Interestingly, the Daoist concepts of qi () and jing (), are quite often represented by the single Chinese ideogram ‘炁’ (qi) which suggests an integration of ‘breath’ (氣 – Qi) and ‘essential nature’ (精 – Jing) achieved during successful self-cultivation.  ‘炁’ (qi) is used as a transliteration of the Sanskrit ‘prana’.  I am referring here, of course, to the ‘Three Treasures’ (San Bao – 三寶) of which shen is a part.  Now, if the three Daoist gods of the three purities can be related to the three treasures, and the three treasures linked to the three bodies of the Buddha (Trikaya), then there is a trail of evidence!
With Metta
Adrian

Nyanatiloka: Playing with Emptiness

000000000000

‘On the doctrine of anatta, or ‘egolessness’, i.e., the impersonality and emptiness of all phenomena of existence, the author repeatedly felt the necessity of throwing light from every possible point of view, but it is exactly this doctrine which, together with the doctrine of the conditionality of all phenomena of existence, constitutes the very essence of the whole Teaching of the Buddha without   which it will be by no means possible to understand it in its true light.  Thus the doctrine of impersonality runs like a red thread right through the whole book.’

(Nyanatiloka: Buddhist Dictionary, Preface 1946)

The Venerable Nyanatiloka Maha-Thera (1878-1957) was an eminent German-born Theravada Buddhist monk who entered the Sangha in Sri Lanka, and became renowned for exact and precise scholarly understanding of that school’s complex Dharma teaching.  He possessed the ability to a) understand and contextualise often obscure Pali terms and concepts, and b) correctly transliterate and translate those terms into Western languages.  His work regarding the Theravada School is reliable and insightful.  His numerous Dharma-books bring alive – for a Western audience – the teachings of the Buddha first uttered well-over two thousand years ago in ancient India (in the Chinese Buddhist tradition, it is believed that the Buddha lived around three thousand years ago).  Indeed, many have reported experiencing a type of ‘freedom’ just from coming into contact, and reading Nyanatiloka Maha-Thera’s words, and in his old age, he had more than a passing resemblance to the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates.  In his youth, he studied music Frankfurt and Paris, and travelled widely throughout the world, visiting India, Sri Lanka, the Middle East, and Greece.  He became a novice monk (Samanera) in Rangoon (Burma) in 1903, and became a Bhikkhu a year later in 1904 (in the Theravada tradition).  Between 1910-11 he left Sri Lanka and travelled to Lausanne area of Switzerland – where introduced many to Buddhism.  In fact, it was during this time that the Venerable Nyanatiloka Maha-Thera ordained the first Buddhist monk on Western soil.  Of course, like a number of Germans who go unrecognised, Nyanatiloka Maha-Thera (birth-name Anton Gueth) did not participate as a belligerent in either WWI or WWII, although whilst living in Sri Lanka, he was twice imprisoned by the British as an enemy alien (as Sri Lanka was then a British Colony).  In 1916, he was granted a passport to Honolulu, from where he travelled to China.  He was arrested and imprisoned (as China had joined Britain in her war against Germany), and was not released until 1919.  He lived as a teacher of Pali for a time in Japan after WWI, before finally being allowed back into Sri Lanka by the British in 1926.  During WWII the British interned him in the Dehra-Dun Central Internment Camp, situated in North India – before being released in 1946.  Indeed, this is the address he gives at the bottom of his 1946 Preface for the First Edition of his excellent book entitled ‘Buddhist Dictionary’ (a very learned compendium of Pali Buddhist terms correctly translated into English).

Do Not Worship Cause and Effect

160501-Ottawa-MayDay-19

Our societies are full of bourgeois spiritualities that have no basis in logic and reason, and whilst purporting to offer a ‘higher’ path, are in fact an anchor weighing down on the heads of the working class, (and in the case of distorted Buddhism, quite literally),  These bourgeois entities mirror religious structure and spiritual instruction, but never (except in the case of radical or fringe practitioners) question the inequalities or injustices inherent within the capitalist, liberal democratic, bourgeois societies that have spawned them.  This is exactly the point of these bourgeois spiritualities, they claim to offer ‘freedom’ but freedom from what?  It certainly is not the injustices, war and famine perpetuated by the outer societies within which they exist, or the class oppression meted-out by the bourgeoisie itself upon the working class.  These ‘spiritual’ paths are follies for the wealthy, and those who already possess systemic political power and the means to guide culture along a non-threatening path, so as not to compromise the class privilege already amassed through the stolen profit of the labour of others.  In this sense, (and all others), bourgeois spirituality is nothing but a ‘muse’ to entertain the middle classes when they get momentarily bored of the opulence that surrounds them, but even then, opulence tends to dictate the inner and outer structures of the philosophy and theology that often offers a better tomorrow, but which as of yet, has never been proven to be true.  All these paths imply and infer that they possess a ‘higher’ knowledge as yet unknown by rational science, or the enquiring minds of humanity.  In other words, they peddle speculative and highly imaginative post-death scenarios, promising the living that when dead, they will carry-on living!  A question that everyone should be asking is this; does life mean so much now (with all its disasters, pain, suffering, and momentary pleasures), that anyone in their right minds would want to repeat the process again, albeit in somekind of disembodied format?

Although this generally goes unacknowledged, rational science has solved the meaning of existence, but not many people (accept for the Buddha in ancient India, and one or two others around the world) have realised this.  To build the picture, exactly the same thing happens before death, as it does after death, and our individual opinions about this natural process do not matter one iota, as the universe simply continues to do its ‘thing’ irrespective of how we might fell about it.  What is this ground-breaking realisation?  It is simplicity itself, as it is merely the observation that everything happens due to ‘cause and effect’, nothing more.  All the rest of the accumulated ‘junk’ of religiosity that has accrued over-time is simply an obscuration of this fact.  Such muddled religious teaching is like trying to formulate an echo, or define a shadow, none of it works, but instead forces humanity into religiously inspired ghettoes of the mind and body existence.  This type of limited religious thought creates the prisons it claims to possess the keys to.  Of course, ‘religion’ will not like hearing this insight because it directly ‘sees through’ Bourgeois obscuration and threatens its very existence by revealing its inherent redundancy.

Much of contrived religion is about keeping the masses looking in the wrong place for universal truth.  Universal truth does exist, and rational science has already de-mystified it and made it readily available, even if that science exists within bourgeois societies, and presents this truth though that political outlook.  The point is that science found universal truth by breaking away from the limitations of Judeo-Christian theology.  However, as it serves the class interests of the bourgeoisie to keep perpetuating the ignorance of theology, the toiling masses are kept from further and higher education, and encouraged to worship in a church rather than carry-out rational scientific research in a laboratory.  Why is this?  It is because rationality reveals the stupidity of capitalism as a defining economic system – as Albert Einstein pointed-out.  If the whole of society worked this out for itself, the capitalist system would collapse from within, washing away its rotting infrastructure of support.  Instead of middle class universities excluding the masses and compromising with the irrationality (i.e. read ‘greed’) of capitalism, they would have to throw all their academic weight behind actively participating in the revolutionary process of encouraging and guiding the evolutionary process for the betterment of humanity.

The churches need not be abolished – they must simply start telling the truth – and those who follow Buddhism should stop pretending it is Christianity, or a method for gaining money from the gullible and unsuspecting.  Islam should release that the modern and rational mind ‘worships’ Allah every time it creates a medicine that saves countless lives, and Brahmanism should let its natural beauty (as bright as the sun) shine through.  Science has existed in the past in all parts of the world, and this is a fact that must be understood.  Many ancient cultures had ‘science’ and used their collective minds to influence the world.  Modern science is, of course, a refinement of this process, but science within capitalist societies is currently dominated by a restrictive bourgeois straitjacket that prevents it from truly shining.  This is science polluted by the search for perpetual monetary gain and momentary advantage.  For science to truly fulfil its ‘emancipatory’ (i.e. ‘religious’) function, it must be ‘freed’ from this limited control.  Rational thought must be freed from inner psychological conditioning, and outer societal conditioning for humanity’s true potential to be unleashed for a better tomorrow.  The real mystery is how conventional religion has survived so long through delivery so little, but of course, it is no mystery at all.  That which is corrupt or of no rational use, is kept in place by a political class because it suits that class’s long-term purposes.  Religion as it currently exists (even its good manifestation) keeps humanity at a certain level of thought, and does not allow any progress beyond this point.  The working class, simply for evolutionary purposes, must progress beyond the limitations of theology for the betterment of the psychological and physical health of humanity.

Uncertainty Matters

6e25ec8417f87497dd8ca6d4fb9a25f3

Monday 13 May 1963

‘This evening went to St Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, for a meeting of the Christian Agnostics to hear the Bishop of Woolwich, John Robinson, talking about his book Honest to God, which we had gathered to discuss.  The Reverend Joseph McCulloch has organised this group, justifying its name by reference to the line (from “Oranges and Lemons”) which runs: “I do not know – says the great bells of Bow”.

At the gathering were Canon John Collins of St Paul’s Cathedral, Father Corbishley (a Jesuit writer), George Dickson (an Industrialist), Duncan Fairn (who took the chair), Gerald Gardiner, Dr Graham Howe (the humanist psychologist), the Earl of Longford, Canon and Mrs Milford, Mrs JB Priestly and a number of others.

The Bishop opened by saying that secularism was not basically anti-Christian and that Christians must understand and even welcome the revolt against dualistic supernaturalism, the mythological view o the world and the religiosity of the Church.  He said his book was designed to help those who were in revolt to see the basic validity of the Christian message.

Canon Collins asked whether Christ was perfect, for if he was, he was then God.  Woolwich replied that he wanted to write a book about Christ and that the Virgin birth made Christ seem unreal.  Woolwich’s interest in Christ lay in his normality, not his abnormality.  He felt he could not make sweeping statements about Christ’s moral life, for what was significant was his obedience.  Collins replied that if you simply say Christ was “the best man I know”, Christianity could never get started.

We broke for supper and resumed for another hour and a half.  Later we had a much deeper discussion about the supernatural, in which I had a long confrontation with Corbishley about whether the evidence for the supernatural came really from external manifestations or the discovery of hidden depths.  Corbishley was splendidly Jesuitical in saying that you had to have mythology “to get people to pray”.  Here is the real nub of the question.  Is prayer a duty or a need?’

(The Best of Tony Benn: Edited By R Winstone, Arrow Books, (2015), Pages 37-38)

I am of the considered opinion that there is a way of knowing that is free of the structural limitations associated with all the conventional systems designed to ‘gather’ facts, and to separate fact from fiction.  This type of knowledge gathering is dualistic and inefficient from a universalist position, but highly efficient from a localised (and limited) perspective.  Modern science falls into this category, as do many religions.  Each system is a programmed device to declare certain phenomenon to be ‘real’ and other ‘phenomenon’ to be false.  This has allowed humanity to develop a certain efficiency of thought and action, and to invent medicine, technology and all kinds of labour-saving devices.  No one in their right mind would call this advancement wrong or incorrect (as the progressive results speak for themselves), and it would be correct to describe modern science as an all-embracing exercise in the management of ‘certainty’ – but what of ‘uncertainty’?  As the remit of modern science is incredibly narrow, it follows that by far the vast majority of existence does not fall into the declared ‘fact’ of scientific understanding.  Therefore science, although vitally important, cannot and does not represent the entirety of human perceptual awareness.  This means that there must be a central position of awareness that fully embraces the entire periphery of ‘knowing’ without any contradiction, partiality, or contradiction.  This, in effect, is the realised integration of ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’ in an instant.  This would imply that everything exists and does not exist simultaneously – and this includes all notions of ‘god’ and ‘non-god’.  Although I am not religious in anyway, I can truthfully state that god exists AND does not exist in equal measure, and that I am disinterested in either view.

Racism and Prejudice as False Consciousness

images

It is not a country or nation state that is racist, but rather a privileged class of people.  This class is the international bourgeoisie which is dominant throughout most countries in the world.  Countries are racist not because they are geographical entities, but because they are run by a class that continuously perpetuates the ideology of racism as part of its strategy to prevent the international working class from realising its predicament, and effectively uniting to do something about it.  Therefore racism is a false consciousness that destroys working class hegemony, and renders each working class person into the disempowered state of isolated individual.  As the international working class is composed of many different and distinct ethnicities, religious groups and cultural identities, the dominant bourgeoisie utilises racism as a means to create a false division in the minds of the workers, and to encourage those workers to exist in a constant state of antagonism and aggression toward one another.  If the workers are busy fighting amongst themselves because of the racism imported into their mind-set by the bourgeois media and education system, then they will be unable to cognise their true situation and realise that they in fact exist in a state of permanent subjugation at the hands of the bourgeoisie.  The function of racism is to prevent insight into the real nature of reality, and it has been justified by the bourgeoisie as a ‘science’ that supposedly links the apparent differences in physicality with differences in genetic structure, etc, which assumes (falsely) that skin-colour ascribes ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ to an ethnic group.  This is not science, but mythology in the service of bourgeois privilege and its maintenance.

The international bourgeoisie developed historically in the West and has evolved to represent white, European power and privilege throughout the world.  The bourgeois dominance of different societies was spread from Europe into Africa, Asia and the Americas through the agency of empire, imperialism and colonisation.  This project saw the European bourgiesie extend its influence beyond the oppression of the European working class and into other areas of the world.  This seizing of political power in other countries was accomplished through the use of military force and the demonization of non-European cultures through the use of Western Christianity.  The bourgeoisie continued to oppress the European working class through political and cultural domination, but formulated the ideology of racism as a means to dominate the non-European peoples of other countries (many of whom had not yet formed a ‘working class’).  This ideology was then educated into the minds of the European working class by the bourgeois education system, and served as the primary means of interaction between Europeans and non-Europeans.  Although working class people were oppressed by the bourgeoisie, the new lie was that at least they were ‘white’ and therefore racially superior to the ‘non-white’ peoples of the world.  This developed from the bourgeoisie encountering different peoples who possessed differing complexions, and it was this apparent ‘difference’ in skin-colour that the bourgeoisie focused upon as the main distinguishing factor when dealing with other cultures, so much so, in fact, that a highly aggressive and destructive pseudo-science developed around it.

When the European bourgeoisie oppressed the European working class, skin-colour was not an issue as both classes were of the same ethnicity, and shared a common culture.  The development of racism is solely a bourgeois class interest and nothing more, but it has been made to infect the minds of the working class who have absolutely nothing to gain from it, as it prevents their uniting in such a manner that can challenge (and over-throw) the dominant bourgeoisie.  However, it must also be understood that ideological racism is a white, European invention that has been spread throughout the world through European imperialism, and that as an ideology, it only serves to empower white people (albeit of the middle class variety).  White working class people who are racist, do not gain any political or economic power from mimicking the bourgeoisie, but are so poorly educated they do not understand this reality.  In the meantime they continue to do the bourgeoisie’s dirty work (in the form of violence, rape and murder), by blaming anyone who is not ‘white’ for the problems the working class suffer at the hands of the bourgeoisie.  This is the essence of false consciousness, and a prime ingredient in the continuation of the maintenance of bourgeois hegemony.  Bourgeois racism can be defined as ‘prejudice’ manifest through economic and political power.  This means that no matter what ignorant white people think about ‘disempowerment’, white people as an ethnic group, possess all the power within European society, despite the fact that the white working class is oppressed by the white bourgeoisie.  As the historical roots of racism is white and European, it logically follows that racism serves the economic (and political) purposes of the white, European bourgeoisie, and that non-white people cannot be ‘racist’ because they are not ‘white’ or ‘European’.  Non-white people – being as they are – victims of historical European domination and oppression, can import European negative attitudes into their minds about other non-white peoples, but this does not mean that they are being ‘racist’ if they give vent to these views.  Black and Asian people in the West do not possess any significant collective economic or political power, and so are unable to make their viewpoints work to their advantage in a system that a priori favours ‘whiteness’ over any other cultural grouping, and this is the case even if non-white people express discriminatory views about white people.  White people cannot be the victims of a racism they invented, whilst living in a society which they fully control and manipulate to their collective benefit.

This observation counters the current trend in white society of the apparent ‘equality’ of racism, which falsely asserts that white people are victims of ‘racist’ crimes.  This is untrue and ‘ahistorical’.  In fact such an allegation is the continuation and development of the bourgeoisie’s ideology of racism under the new conditions of multiculturalism.  This is the maintenance of ‘white privilege’ which seeks to hide and deny the historical presence and existential functioning of white racism within European society.  So powerful is the bourgeois instinct to dominate at the point of contact, that even the ‘victim’ status of those non-white people who suffer under white tyranny, must be took off of them and rendered null and void.  This is because Eurocentric racism assumes that only ‘white’ suffering matters, and the suffering of non-white people is of a lesser order (because they are deemed racially ‘inferior’ and not able to perceive the world as white people do).  When white commenters state that racism is natural because all ethnic groups practice it, they are wrong.  European racism only exists in other non-European groups, because European imperialists placed it there!  When non-white ethnic groups in the West are seen to attack one another, they are not being ‘racist’ but rather ‘prejudicial’, and only then because they are living under the oppression of the white bourgeoisie.  Just as it is not in the class interests of the white working class to be racist, it is equally not in the class interests of the non-white working class.  It is bourgeoisie racism that separates the world into ‘white’ and ‘non-white’ and it is exactly this ideology that must be over-thrown through the development of non-inverted knowledge and insight by the constituent members of the international working class.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: