Index 
Louis, (or whoever is previewing and probably discarding this letter, but it's intended for Louis, as well as you and anyone else who will read it): I write because I may agree that a revolution of slaves is in the interest of human decency. But before I do, I need to know, in your view, 1. what is slavery? 2. whether the transition to a new world requires Allah's intervention or is within the political scope of humans; 3. whether salvation (the transition) is social, personal, either or both; and 4. whether salvation can occur now or must await death or apocalypse (see #1) Simple questions all, but so difficult in answering. But first about me; and the way I describe me tells you more about it (the topic at hand, slavery) than the description itself. Truth is not in words but in thought behind words. So if my words fail, perhaps my thought does not. I am a Jew, as are you, partly, according to a definition sort of along the lines of Nietzsche. According to other definitions. I might be classified as a Christian (modern European "Jew" for Nietzsche) or even a Presbyterian (post-Reformation western Christian Jew), having been raised such. Though I am all of these by my culture, I consider myself a little more ecumenical having been introduced to Lao Tzu, Confucius, and the varied children of Brahma-Atman. Alas, I am remiss so far in my familiarity with Mohammed's teachings, though I know of the pillars, the great learnings and achievements, and the slave traders of past and present Islam. If by "Jew" you mean the first, i.e. a member of Abraham’s descendants, blood or teaching, I agree that blacks, as well as whites and yellows, and all shades have been subject to "crop sharing" slavery by capitalism enforced at the point of a gun, and earlier actual crop sharing by fealty to hereditary land owners enforced at the point of a spear. At all times since the Exodus the spear, itself, has been backed up by the idea of Hell in the west and rebirth as an untouchable or worse in the Brahman east. China? Well, your ever so great granddaddy might get pissed and scorch your crops if you misbehave. Both guilt of Gods and guns of Caesar enforce systems of slavery. But if you mean by "Jew" one of the 6 million or so who declare themselves to be associated with the practice of a particular religious sect, then I suggest you broaden your horizon. I suspect you have already. If not, I suspect no argument will sway you. So in that vain attempt, let's assume that twice as many as the average for America of these practicing "Jews" get rich enough to be considered slave owners. That's only 12% of the rich population, wherever the "rich" line is drawn. Let's also assume only 10% of blacks (relative to average) get so rich; yielding only about 1% - 2% of that total rich population. You claim all rich blacks can be associated with rich Jews. So true, and with rich Asians and rich Americans, and rich Europeans as well. So Jews may have about 5 to 20 times the voice of blacks, though "Jews" themselves have just a little over 10% - 15% of the say of Germanic descendants (which Includes most of the "Jews", by the way and some of the blacks, e.g. Sally Hemings' descen dants). Asians are rapidly growing as capitalist slave owners, often transitioning from bureaucratic slave owners. So I suggest that this limited, “practicing” Jewish sect wields power and riches in proportion to its numbers, perhaps exaggerated as above beyond those numbers, especially considering possible media influence. So stop here if you refer to this sub-sect as comprising the slave owning class. However, if, as I suspect, you define the masters as the rich and power elite of the 2 billion descendants of "Jewry" that make up Europe and the Americas, as well as the elite of a billion of Abraham's "other" descendents (Hagar's son) in the Middle East and Asia, and let’s not forget the 4 billion Asians. Then I invite you to read on. If not I suggest, again you stop here, for no argument of mine will sway nor even resonate with you. But if still with me that much Jewry is now squeezed through Christianity and Islam, which I believe is obvious considering their holy books, I continue. The particular slavery experienced by black Americans is but a concluding chapter of a long history of slavery reaching back to the beginnings of history in ALL cultures, including Africans that gathered other blacks to sell to European slave traders after keeping the best for themselves. Slavery is a "natural" human condition, so far, if history be a guide. In nearly all past civilized (recorded) history and probably illiterate societies as well such slavery was legal and often far more brutal than any suffered in the 1700's and 1800's, the conditions on slave ships not exempted (try being chained to a bottom-level Trireme oar). At the late date of widely legal slavery in the late 1700’s, the "idea" that slavery itself was immoral began to take hold in the general populations of the world. This I suspect was a direct result of the European (German) Enlightenment. German because it was the Germanic tribes that spilled into northern Europe in the wake of Roman decline. My history emphasizes th e German version of Jewish slave and master morality to which, I think, you refer from a black Muslim history. | Slavery still exists, of course, despite its illegality in all countries of the world today (the last country to make slavery illegal was Mauritania in 1981). While the Enlightenment taught that “all people are created equal” we usually defined and still define "people" as those who think and act like us. People who don't think like us are still OK to treat as slaves, because they aren't really "people", and only people qualify for our moral protection. If we don't know much about them, we can easily convince ourselves how "immoral" other people are (Islamists, for example now); therefore not like us; therefore not subject to our morality of "equality" or "care",etc. So, for example, Europe, Japan, and North America now thrive on "slave" labor (50 cents an hour, if lucky, while we debate raising the “homeland” minimum wage to 10 or 15 dollars for the same hour based on “universal” morals of sharing a “decent” minimum living wage). “Cheap labor” in support of our profligacy is the source of th e "economic miracle" in factories of Asia and South America, and beginning in Africa as well. The “miracle” seems to be the abundance of slaves made available for our riches. You use the analogy of "dogs" for pro athletes and entertainers of Jewish masters, I use the term "prize show-horses" of English gentlemen; and just as the gladiators of Rome some slaves are paid well in gold and honors, but "owned" nonetheless. Most are not paid so well. They say, in capitalism, all "jobs" are voluntary, based on mutual "termination at will" contracts; so no slavery is involved. This is true, legally. However, contracts always say or imply that employees must do what the employer wants or the employer may terminate the contract at will. Though visa-versa applies as well, the power balance is not equal, so in effect each employee contract become a contract of voluntary slavery, some would say forced, given the "necessity" of a job. I might point out that oaths of fealty to a lord in the feudal middle ages were nearly always voluntary. Fealty was exchanged for protection from thieves on the road (or from the lord himself if a thug, but usually not). Loyalty was rendered for relative safety, except when not; like when the lord lost a battle fought for him by those who pledged soldiering and a percent of their crops grown on the lord’s land as part of their fealty; ancient crop sharing and armies, all voluntary, you know, just like our employee c ontracts and army recruitment papers today. Such fealty has been the case since time immemorial but is often exemplified by medieval Europe. So voluntary contracts are nothing new in the scheme of slavery. They also say, in capitalism, anyone can be rich. This is also true. But, as we all know, only a very few can be rich, now just as in the middle ages. If riches are defined by "more than another", one tends to see those with "more" as a superior and to be emulated and those below as inferior targets for extraction of surplus wealth or, what I could call theft. Placement on the superior-inferior scale is often measured by the test of "success", i.e. wealth or position, which often accompany one another. Darwinian to the core. Those riches, as the Siren sings, must come from a little of the surplus of the many below. It's a Ponzi scheme that only works based on slavery, at least relative, at its lower levels, even if the slavery is, as it always has been "voluntary", considering in the final degree suicide as an option as some masters like Cato did. (Cato was Dante's pagan guardian of the gates of Heaven at the base of Purgatory). The trick is to convince the slaves they are really free. One tried and true way is to convince slaves their labors are for the good of all. This expiates feelings of guilt, sort of. But the guilt arises from knowing that by working to improve others wealth we are really working to improve our own, which is fundamentally selfish, and a sin according to most churches (but not Jesus, though selfish for money was). So the rich take their penny per dollar produced by slaves wishing to be rich like their boss. “Work harder and you can be rich like me, and God will forgive you your greed.” If y ou believe that, either one, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn. But the Siren forever sings; Those riches, as the Siren sings, must come from a little of the surplus of the many below. It's a Ponzi scheme that only works based on slavery, at least relative, at its lower levels, even if the slavery is, as it always has been "voluntary", considering in the final degree suicide as an option as some masters like Cato did. (Cato was Dante's pagan guardian of the gates of Heaven at the base of Purgatory). The trick is to convince the slaves they are really free. One tried and true way is to convince slaves their labors are for the good of all. This expiates feelings of guilt, sort of. But the guilt arises from knowing that by working to improve others wealth we are really working to improve our own, which is fundamentally selfish, and a sin according to most churches (but not Jesus, though selfish for money was). So the rich take their penny per dollar produced by slaves wishing to be rich like their boss. “Work harder and you can be rich like me, and God will forgive you your greed.” If y ou believe that, either one, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn. But the Siren forever sings; "If you play your cards just right, You, yes, YOU could be one of the rich. Follow me in devoted subservience And rewards beyond ideas can be yours. Take not your eyes off the prize For brass rings fly randomly by Now quickly and quickly again. Think not of your pain Only your gain In either yourself or the world. For riches flow To those who know To take them from those Who tend not well To their own." | We all charge after this Siren at first, diligently accepting our pain, planning our gain, and waiting for our brass ring so we too can legally steal from slaves such as ourselves. Then we learn, first by only suspecting, that we will not be one of the ones. But we continue to hope, increasingly in vain, that the ring will pass by again. Here, I think, we must guard against bitterness from hope unfulfilled. I suspect many, even many of the "rich" succumb here and throw stones of envy at those richer in whatever they failed, in their own minds, to achieve. Demagogues have open season in this field of lost dreams, especially when linked to the passions of youth, who are so easily disappointed. Again, Louis, I suspect you have not so succumbed; either to the bitterness or demagoguery, though many accuse you of both. I suspect you see a glimmer of truth in what I say so far, which would honor me greatly; which is why I take time to compose this letter, for my honor and perhaps your slight benefit by providing another view toward that truth of which I think you may also see a glimmer. Continue? The serf of the middle ages, the peasant during the Enlightenment, the "worker" of the industrial age and the "consumer" of our current age all fill the role of slaves for the riches and powers of others. You mention 10% living on 85%, I think more like 0.01%, but it's arbitrary where you draw the line beyond pure sharing is it not? I hope you recognize power (as your own admitted power as being perhaps as powerful as Paul was for Jesus) as being just as tempting as a source of slavery as riches are, as I suspect you do. (Wow, 9 "as's" or "identities" in one sentence, but I will stick with it). I am but an observer, you are blessed or cursed as a messenger. Perhaps as you say black Americans can lead the way. I encourage you to use your power, Louis. If you are still with me, below is a deeper, controversial suggestion that I believe points a way “home” for humanity; if not, what follows will be but more blather. No one in America is short of food, at least not easy access to it. No one in America is without shelter on cold nights, at least not access to it. Jobs are disappearing to machines. The number and percentage of people who are living, in part or whole off the surplus of the commons are increasing. Blacks are on greater state support (surplus from the commons) percentage wise than any other group (whites are more abundant but at a lessor percentage, Asians rule). We demonize this state of affairs; call our mothers "welfare queens", encourage them to leave their children in "day" care while they get an education so they can get a job, take out a loan, buy a car or house, and be an indebted slave for the rest of their lives. Is it immoral for a mother and father to raise and educate their own children? Is it more moral that they abandon the child to day care and school and “produce” by having a job? Are not so many of our toys just one form or another of “labor saving” devices? Was I not told as a child and adult that the desirable state at the end of our labors dedicated to research, technology, and “progress” was to be able to live healthy and labor no more? What happens when we get there? Perhaps we are there now, at least for some. Is it immoral for some to reap life from others' riches as those others reap riches from others’ lives? Perhaps as the chosen ones, black Americans (though any of any races or creeds can follow the message) can show the world how to live simply but peaceably (bickering allowed) in a world of plenty. Know that resistance will be severe, as I am sure you must. I suspect resistance to simplicity of life comes in part because most people are terrified to meet themselves in quiet solitude, so they get lost in "things". Things soon become boring so new things are needed to re-lose one’s self. Capitalism promises a cornucopia of never ending “new” if not improved things. We “educate” to make better mechanical robots in the great production machine that makes the rich richer and the poor richer. After the basics are reading and writing, we stress math, science, and other “job” skills. Do we offers much philosophy, literature, religion, and other such “usel ess” “mind-and-spirit” skills? No, even though such topics teach us far more about how to get along with other people? I can imagine a world where we provide free food and shelter and teach such “mind expanding” topics, so we can sit around, talk about Allah, and gossip about neighbors (if we talk of Allah, gossip will be less destructive, I think). So I suggest "take but do not indulge" as a moral alternative to "give by enslavement and hope for a golden ring". Do we need cell phones and cars and potato chips and jet planes? NO, NO, and 1000 times NO. You know it, and I know it. We NEED food and shelter in the winter. Such food and shelter can be had for but a fraction of the total world economy, while maintaining infrastructure and expertise to meet agricultural and housing production needs of the world. We ARE there, at least for many if we switch the morality of "taking" and “giving”. We can talk, gossip, love, hate, cry, laugh, plan, scheme, and do all the other things that make us human with a spark of the divine, if we are but well fed and housed (clothed if you must). Plus, it seems to me we can't really touch each other very well through cell phones and TV's. So why do we spend so much attention on them, i.e. “things”? Again, I suspect it is because without them we might have to really interact with real people. The fear, always the fear. Many consider Judge Judy more of a friend than their neighbor. How sad. What a submissive, one-sided, delusional, lonely friendship; while next door unknown to us by name our lonely neighbor does the same. How sad. How very sad. Lead us, Louis. Join the new Pope, the ousted president of Egypt, the Buddhist generals of Burma. Show how to live off charity, frugally yet proudly and thankfully in a world of plenty. Show how to lead a life thankful for life, not a life cursing its unfilled desires beyond life itself. What more precious gift can Allah give, if we will just accept it. I recommend gracious acceptance. By the way, besides peaceful souls, the environment would thank you too, if it could. |