What are we without the inferiority of the other ? A man takes pride in ‘male’ accomplishments; the ideas (interests) ruling the earth’s spin around the sun: The big star represents our higher purpose. A woman is, therefore, inferior – nevertheless part of the ‘big ideals’, as she is not the maker of the world but important tool to the makers – the man: “ha, you throw like a girl, dude”.
The man drains his complexes in the ideas of ‘other men’, like draining pasta in a sieve. Though the man himself formed not one original idea of his own. But at least he is no woman… (Simone De Beauvoir, the second sex)
The working-class, everyday, European citizen walks the earth with less worth than a pair of snake skin shoes. He/she is nothing in itself; decent ideas of self-improvement only encourage the thunderstorm: The capitalist doctrine. They find refuge in ‘individual’, finance projects – buying a home, becoming rich, making ‘something’ out of their lives. So how does a specie so ready to commit suicide than build patience while figuring out the complexities of the world, which it has so prolonged to begin, fill his time while stalling future conquest of itself, predominately petty anxieties ? They, indeed, aim to financially ‘make something of themselves’. Not one conscience mind can find redemption, accept-ion or mere existence in self economics; indeed, the ‘anquish’ remains with the propagandised mind that yearns for the belief in riches equalling a ‘better self’. But there is more to it, for their identity rests on the other.
Racism is never natural. The US policy included ‘making concessions for poor whites’ – freedom to bare arms, vote, own some petty land and have enough to ‘get by’ and pretend a future is possible. The distinction degraded the white person, who previously ran away with slaves to escape their shared ‘fate’ and design a more humane destiny, to a reflexive racist. They placed new value on their existence. They believed they shared the same destiny as their masters by being white, revolving around the same ‘sun’, in “fraternity under command” – (Howard Zinn, people’s history of the United States). “we are part of the ‘American idea, the city on a hill, the perfect union”. The blacks, following the so called ‘abolishment of slavery’, find their existence behind bars as new age of ‘slaves’; but, now, solidarity has declined and the space for ‘revolt’ is hindered by prison.
Seldom any ideas of their own blessed through their existence; whites devolve into pride in ‘us’ – the European, white race being ‘superior’; of course, this is believed despite the horrible ‘Western-imperialist’ evils never observed by other clans, ethnic groups or religions. But they are above the rest, for the “indigenous and blacks were given civilisation by the white man,” a group they are now part of, for they have the concessions.
“The good black man” faces the racist, condesending end of fingers. He is not like ‘other’ blacks; a love for America possess his thoughts and he follows the rules, accepting his inferiority, just a ‘good-woman’ is one that is persuaded to continue her honourable work as a house wife. A small protest triggers the awaited response: “Woman, I pay the bills here, I break, age my body for you and the children and you, my wife”. This ‘honourable housewife position’ proves inferior, dis-honurable in the face of male superiority; for the man asserts his economic superiority and superiority of the male, as soon a gesture of protest takes physical form, just like a black protest.
“He [Brandon Marshall] makes his money from America, but disrespects our flag,” they say. A short moment in solidarity with his oppressed sharers of identity, lights the fuse of a possessed racist. Morgan Freeman says, “[we should] stop talking about racism,” and he is the “good black-man”, no protest in his tongue. White racism is now re-asserted; the deathening silence, a swim in apathy bio-degrades into the world of ‘us’, the sun, that we all are ‘one’ with ‘american’ ideas (Freedom and guns; freedom only means guns and beer, because ‘all lives matter’, but somehow, ‘blue lives’ seem to matter on its own, in itself to the same double-thinking, racist impulse…)
The liberal vacuums votes by pointing his dirty nail at poor, “white racists”, people it has been neglecting in meetings with the ruling-class, ruling superamacy: White supermacist capitalism, imperialism included in its package. He, like his predecessors, prefers under-the-rug racism; they are in bed with the tyrants, and compulsively purchase parrots to apologise for them. These parrots, the liberal media, panic, becomes apapolectic when real change becomes possible. “We thought you would like situations that may demolish racism and in-equality,” we all think; the anti-Corbyn nonsense in the media is one example. But how are these cop-outs any different than their ancestrial dynasty… can one detect the difference between the two impulses, so wide apart in age ? A liberal was silent a good part of post-slavery slavery and racism. He prefered, just as he does now, to shiver off his sweaty guilt onto the dirty, smelly ground: The poor southern whites. He is now superior to them, less racist in his personal life, for he is intellectual and cool, as they have been telling us constantly. Now the southern, the racist, the mid-western is in-tune with an anti-intellectual belief. How is this human existence going to be expected to think intellectually, form ideas when the very process is represented by the “enemies” that are very much like themselves, but may have smoked weed, worn dreads or eat only vegan ? Process of inference and inductions, monopolised by the liberal, is now a un-patriotic instance in criticism of self and ideas.
The white poor believes that the ‘liberals’ are destroying ‘our country’ and ideals – the sun: Freedom, the constitution, scandly-clad women and Starbucks, over-priced coffee. He is superior to the liberal – and to the blacks, “the criminals (because the made-up statistics that prove that they are)”.
“Western values” says the embarrassed, ignorant white working-class European. “What are they,” you ask and a referral to the great ideas of men, in possession of notions the ignorant reject and deem as un-patriotic, emerges: “Freedom and equality”.
The European citizen asserts his/her own superiority through the ideas of others; Interests of the rulers are the ‘ideals’ of the poor. The man of self-interest, money, power, professes allegiance with the flow of Martin Luther king, for instance; but, we shall ask, doesn’t this man idolise the notions, ideas, views which MLK opposed, the people that opposed racial and economic equality ?
The money man, in times of trouble, brewing dis-content, latches to modes that assimilate the disease with the patient. Cancer is believed to be cured with more cancer — claiming we need to be me even more extreme in our views: The right-wing grasp the idolised past, romanticise ‘the never existed’ portrayals of certain ‘our values’, and co-opt the idea that the problems lay with the inferior: The out-of-hand woman; the war refugee from Syria; the liberal who claims the existence of over a million genders, immersed in the belief pronouns establish equality; the benefit scrounger. And, to pierce the last breath of reality, they claim an enemy unified with them all: the ‘liberal’, immigrant, benefit scrounger – a transexual, women’s abortion rights in Poland, for instance. Of course, the empty mind requires a feeling of being part of something expressed through the defined inferiority of others, defined by the oppressor, of course.
They become the makers of ‘the world’, claiming to represent the course of history, by attempting to go backwards, believing a new megabyte on a product proves their forward motion.
So, ‘we need to go back’. Any voice opposing this is the voice of the ‘guilty liberal’ and is therefore detrimental to ‘us’ and our superiority. But, of course, nobody should mention the interests of masters, and how the interests shape society, the existential reality of many minds un-hindered by matured thoughts.
“Don’t you see how they treat their women, forcing niqabs and Burkas?,” they ask, sincerely, as if their own are treated properly, as though ‘femininity’ is never scrutinised, as if a woman’s sexualised body does not sell the useless product. Like the asserted usefulness of the product through the woman’s body, their own individual usefulness is, once again, asserted; for they are advanced enough to ‘treat their women as naked objects of sex’. Whereas, the otherside, the right-wing muslim, or another group, treats the woman as a sex object by covering: Both products, like buying packaged or open display tomatos.
One should not assume the other-side is better: The conservative Muslim finds refuge, ‘usefulness’ and a sense of belonging: superiority to the decadent, ‘open’ West; porno and sex freaks. As if belly dancing is a produce that Muslims empires did not display in their cultural repository; as if the French romantics opened the first Harems in the Ottoman empire and forced sultans to drink an abundance of wine; as if homosexuality and sexual eroticism was not even more open in the Muslims during the days of the ‘dark and backward Christian world’, as it was so referred to in the Muslim world.
It is their masters who propose this other, the master who builds Hilton hotels that a rich man can access in the hopes to look down on the kabbah, the Islamic holy sight, from above, almost like god himself; it is, of course, what the prophet, the man among the poor, the man who fiercely even opposed the notion of financial ‘savings’, had in mind: A so called religious man in a gold plated Mercedes, in Hilton Hotel conference rooms, telling others of the decadence of the ‘western person’. And, of course, Jesus, the American white man – sigh – favoured racism and richness over compassion and sharing.
All anxieties and existential worries are now set aside, thankfully for the rulers who’s system caused most of it. Hail the ‘good-leaders’ and ‘their people’.
Now, out all racism, bigotry, which are systematic, not individual, can be referred to one cardinal sin: The oppression of women, displayed so obviously, expressed in reference to decadence and freedom by two supposedly opposing sides. The oppression of the black person ‘happened’: slavery, Jim-Crow, racist Britain, the ghettos of Paris, continuing today; the working-class person’s oppression is part of the historical process; A woman’s oppression is neither: She always has, from the ancients till now, with exception, been the inferior ‘other’. It did not happen; it always was.
The mothers that we love more than anything become the people we hate when they bypass all societal mythologies and become a woman. A man, born of a woman, can easily despise femininity: “Girly, weak, emotional, i-rational”.
We can only be existentially free when we cut out the inferiority of the other, mostly bestowed on us by the wrong-doings of those we believe we share a destiny with, but only feed off scraps, while blinded by the sun and barring all the pain from all its consequences. This ‘cut-off’ must begin with the assertion of femininity as equal, not as an idolised, nevertheless inferior other; neither is the romanticised ‘other’ a notion that rids us of hierachy, patriachy. The one deemed ‘inferior’ is, like the one deeming himself/herself superior, capable of wrong-doings, stupidity and holds the capacity to reflect the pyshopathy of their oppressors: Thus, our cardinal sin, the romanticised oppression of women, is our cut off point; the representation of our impulse to form the other to form our own identity. The oppression of women, is our original problem and it is where we must start. Or, in this unruly world, all oppression will remain, anxieties will persist and grow, and only the egotistical, invisible, calm mind can choose the path to free themselves and assert their existence, free of societal views, all in the midst of chaos. In this world, this invisible person will choose anarchy over chaos, justified notions over false beliefs of idolised representations of ‘our sun’ and can only achieve this with in-difference to all suffering, creating themselves through themselves and not from asserting an inferiority that justifies, in a narrow mind, the superiority of themselves. Such a world is only destined for its own self-destruction. One cannot sweep evil under the unknown other forever.