Tuesday, November 25, 2014

The Worst Thing on Earth


Ol' Mizzuruh

When you look at the history of the State of Missouri, it's completely obvious what happened between Wilson and Brown. Missouri was the "swing state" of the Civil War, harboring some of the most bitter infighting between Confederate and Union sympathizers. Before the war began, Missourians were split over the issue of slavery. Same old story: farmer-types, people who wanted to use the imported poor for inslavery semi-skilled labor for farming cash crops, versus factory types, people who wanted to use the imported poor for outslavery semi-skilled labor to run their factories. Slaveholders, being old-fashioned, were willing to invest capital value in their assets, while factory men were crafty enough to foresee the future of externalized slavery, reducing repression costs by condensing slave populations into urban ghettos, thereby increasing overall profit while cutting their caloric capital losses when poor children starved.

The Worst Thing on Earth

In 1828 was born the worst monster ever to be created on Earth: the American Democratic Party. It was an expansionist, imperial party, feigning opposition against the Bank of the United States to consolidate popular support behind tribal genocide. Very quickly, the Democrats' modus operandi revealed itself: fight a showy losing battle against a preferred cause, while using that same battle to conceal terrific atrocities committed gleefully. Across the face of three centuries, now, the Democratic Party has acted in the same way, successfully employing this technique to become the greatest butcher the world has yet known.

In the persona of Andrew Jackson--just the first of the Democratic Party's Mammonist puppets--this took the form of fighting against the Bank of the U.S., drawing popular attention to a good (though purposefully doomed) cause, while increasing the intensity of the Indian Wars. The Jackson Administration was able to make genuinely good arguments, such as the protection of common Americans (white, small-landholding) against the destructive power of finance capital, and thereby appear to be helping Americans, by slowly giving way to the Bank...all while it massacred the aboriginal tribes at a then-unprecedented pace.

Pause for a moment of reflection on the Indian Wars, then and to follow. These were the times when the military president Jackson brought in more artillery; when the Democratic Party began aggressively expanding its power base, at a pace that put the Puritans to shame. Heavy guns moved into the fields in increasing numbers, not only laying the stage for the Civil War, but blasting apart tribe after tribe with scatters of grapeshot. Not even for resistance, this, but for simply not exiting annexed territory quickly enough. This was the era of shooting papooses, bayoneting open pregnant women's bellies, and throwing fetuses under horses' hooves. The Democratic Party took all the nastiest elements of British colonialism and modernized them, sweeping away great swathes of land to open to southern slave plantations, northern trading centers, and railroads.

The Bank of the U.S. was meant to succeed, as of course it did, although Andrew Jackson may have actually loathed the "Bank" idea. Meaningfully, Jackson himself personified what was to become the 20th and then 21st-century Democratic voter: such an impassioned, idealistic believer in one of the Party's token "causes" that he could commit any act under the sun in service to that cause.

KKKiller KKKountry

Jackson brought in his successor, Van Buren, who was boring but connected to Andrew Jackson, driving America through a banking "panic" (e.g., a cyclical recession caused by finance capital) while continuing to steal as many tribal lands and order as many babies shot and slaves whipped as he could. While in office, Van Buren--who was boring, as has been mentioned--helped out with a lot of the backroom politicking that solidified the Democratic Party's organizational structure in Washington. No one liked Van Buren, but again, he was Jackson's VP, so he got in that way.

During Van Buren's term, the Democratic Party realized what it needed to do to maintain its hold on power: create a false opposition power, crafted in the image of its true desires, to both shock and horrify simpleton voters into Democratic arms, and to make Democrats look appealing to intellectual voters by verifiable contrast. Whereas Andrew Jackson probably believed he was part of a "new" party, the Democratic Party turned out to be only a sustainable model of the large landholders' party: a model that, unlike the "Democratic-Republican Party" of yesteryear, would be able to cut down on infighting by externalizing its negative counterpart. In short, the image of an "inter-party" debate was determined to be more cheaply accomplished than the previous image of "intra-party" debate.

(If you're not much up on that kind of history, debate within parties used to be a much larger component of American politics. Creating the Democratic Party and its various offshoot "antagonists" cut this way down, to the point where we are now: even the in-party fights are shows, as the DLC manages (1) who will get nominations and dollars during winning years, (2) who will get bought out with consolation government posts after winning elections, and (3) who will get honored with the nomination in losing years. E.g., Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis...Bob Dole, John McCain...throwaway candidates being honored for their Party service by being permitted to run with "the full support of their party," despite the obvious forecastive impossibility of their success.)

After Van Buren, it had been two Democrats in a row, so time to put the Democratic strategy into effect: pass the ball to the counterpart to take some kind of fall. Unfortunately, William Henry Harrison was the one who died after 32 days, and like CIA Bush to Reagan, the Democrats had a man on the inside: John Tyler, the VP who took over once the old, retired, pneumonia-infected Harrison died (no doubt causing much surprise and consternation within Democratic Party halls, gasp!). Harrison and Tyler had been Whigs in name, but Tyler showed his true colors swiftly, making an agreement with British banks as to how to divide up American tribal resources for the U.K. and the U.S. (Webster-Ashburton), how to divide up Chinese resources for the U.K. and the U.S., (Treaty of Wanghia), and how the Qing crime syndicate, the British royals, and the American military would control the international opium trade (Wanghia also). The brutalizing that the Treaty of Wanghia caused worldwide, and of course in China in particular, would prove staggering, eventually forcing the barons of the Qing crime syndicate to transfer their stolen assets to Taiwan under British and American protection, and many Qing heirs to eventually relocate themselves and their assets to America and western Europe, while always trying to regain their former power over China's people.

To accomplish his staggering imperial overreach, which echoed the Monroe Doctrine but globally rather than regionally, John Tyler had to act like an emperor, rather than a president. He issued executive orders, ignored Congress and the judiciary, and was rather the original FDR. Need dead Indians? Sign here. Need dead Chinese? Sign here. For his insanity, Tyler was expelled from the Whig Party, and came out of the closet as a Democrat, where he was happily received.

Tyler didn't just try to kill Chinese and American Indians in what is now the United States of America, though. He was a big supporter of killing Mexicans and Central American tribal peoples, as well, and spent the last two years of his presidency obsessing over invading Texas (which can be nicely put as "annexing" Texas). After the Civil War, the good Democrat sided, of course, with the Confederacy, and serve in legislative office there; to gloss over this fact, Tyler is usually treated as "an un-influential president," even though his work on China would set the stage for many of the Democratic Party's most profitable twentieth century wars. Whereas Whigs and other parties had been less cooperative with London banking interests, the Democratic Party had shown itself to be a perfect extension of the British Empire, perceiving its gradual heirship from London, France, Rome, and Athens. New York City was to be the new empire city; the new face on the world's financial comptrollers, paying homage to western civilization in the proper way. And the Democratic Party was destined to lead that rise and eventual fall. Tyler's cooperative stance reassured the imperial bankers that America was on-board. No more Whigs; no more notions of independence or self-determination; hello, globalism. In this, he was perhaps more influential than his successor, Bloody Polk.

The First Big One

Tyler's failure to crush the independent tribal peoples and settlers of Texas, and to stop those peoples from seeking protection from the Mexican Government, turned out much like Obama's recent failure to murder a bunch of people in Syria. The Democratic Party had, for the first time, overreached itself, trying to gobble up too many parts of the planet at once; killing too many hundreds of thousands more than the country yet had the spine for. Many dozens more American tribes needed to be slaughtered to complete the expansion across the continent and fulfill Manifest Destiny, and worse, the Democrats' counterparts in Spain, then France, were exerting indirect financial control over Mexico, threatening to make it into an annoying regional power, a la Canada. The midwestern tribes needed to be murdered and dispersed to make way for railroads, but railroads were closely linked to the Democrats' favored London-centered banking interests.

After all that Andrew Jackson had done to make people think that the Democrats were the one party on the side of regular American people, by opposing the Bank of the United States, the Party was now stuck between a rock and a hard place: it needed those financiers to get their free land, loans, jails, and nationwide network of banks and express delivery companies (credit transfers at long distance before computers and phones required deliverymen carrying notes in person on railroads), and yet, it couldn't be seen to cause such things to happen. What the Democratic Party needed now was its first-ever fall guy. Its patsie; its stooge; its Dubya.

But the stooge model wasn't yet complete. Eager to complete its work of stealing Texas, the Democratic Party had James Polk elected. Polk was a horror of horrors. Though later Democrats would do it again in still more horrible ways, Polk pulled the mask completely off the Democratic Party's skull head, going around treaties and Chinese-slaughtering far away, and taking America directly into war against Mexico. He wanted to create living space for pure American people, so he killed those who were already living there, and claimed he was seizing a barren wasteland for the needful people of his fatherland--a familiar British, then Democratic, refrain. Like Saddam Hussein, Polk killed "his own people," butchering American-born Texas settlers who didn't want to be part of "the Union," and indicating that the Democratic Party was unilaterally about murder and theft.

The First Patsy

After Polk, the first sucker to take on the job of "the more evil option" was Zachary Taylor, a general who'd obediently killed people for the Democratic Party's invasion of Mexico. For his service, he was rewarded with the second-ever Whig presidency after the Democrats had consolidated their power; just like William Henry Harrison, Taylor died after only about a year. There was nothing mysterious about his death, of course; it was just one of those things that happened. As a result of Taylor's death, Millard Fillmore took over--a Know Nothing Party member (not a full Whig like Taylor), who started laying Civil War groundwork. Being a vulgar, openly-racist Know Nothing, Fillmore made his successor, Franklin Pierce, look reasonable by comparison, even though Pierce was a frothing maniac. Pierce is usually considered "minor," in the traditional way that American history tries to make its major players of minor importance; Pierce was a Democrat (of course), who reviled the abolitionist movement and continued empowering the American slave states to play them off against the north. Perhaps even more importantly, he used the Kansas-Nebraska Act to expand banks and railroads farther across the midwest, giving away more large chunks of American (read: tribally bloodstained) land to the New York and London banking consortiums that wanted to, and would soon come to, own the continent. Just like in Iraq, a bunch of poor white naive idiots died fighting swarthy people, so that distant families could grow safely rich.

Pierce stoked things up nice and good, too, for his successor Buchanan, by brutally enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, and empowering the dying southern economy so that it would be strong enough for the Civil War. The Democratic Party is often seen as the "stupid southern party," but if so, why was it occupying the White House almost wholly in the years leading up to the Civil War? Why and how would so many powerful presidents of "the Union" be responsible for the long trend of predictable "mistakes" leading up to the Civil War? And why would so many American historians call so many clearly deliberate acts "mistakes"?

(For foreshadowing purposes, in case you didn't know, James Buchanan, Pierce's successor and the sitting President of the southern secession, was also a Democrat.) (If you're at all into freemasonry, or any of those wacky baseless theories that certain groups infiltrate places to start wars on behalf of certain financial interests that like money and depopulation, Buchanan was quite the active mason.)

Life After Death

So there are the Democrats again, whipping darkies to death and raping preteen housemaids and selling the continent to London, when they take a brief break from shooting Indians in order to build the modern police state. While the "Whig" party lost power, and therefore plausible deniability as to its ability to be a "counterpart" to the Democrats, the Democratic Party metastasized two new tumors to fake its own death and resurrection, in homage to the Party's Machiavellian methods: Unionist Democrats, who were meant to form the faction controlling northern states, and Separatist Democrats, who were meant to form the faction controlling southern states.

The sham contest between the two "factions" of the Democratic Party occurred in all of America's stolen tribal graveyards ("states"), where elite party managers formed paramilitary squads to execute people based on race, religion, and perceived political alignment. For voters in 2014, familiar with the "inept, bleeding heart donkey" image of the Democratic Party, this sounds unbelievable, but it's all too true--birthed in the blood of dead Indians and bullwhipped darkies, the Democratic Party soon turned itself into the pre-Civil War slaughter factory that led straight to Antietam. What distinguishes Democratic paramilitary murders from "conspiracy theory"-type accusations is that the Democratic murders of this period were formal, open, and acknowledged. Local party officials, from mayors to town councilmen, openly called for violence against political opponents.

In keeping with the theme of the Democratic Party, we'll unpleasantly employ the nicest versions of the Party's preferred terms when discussing the period.

Nigger killing. Democratic Party separatist factions swept the south clean of "uppity negroes." Yes, this is that period: lynchings, beatings, dragging bodies through the streets, raping women, tossing crippled babies into rivers...the Democrats shored up their control of the American deep south by murdering African Americans who had too visible a public presence. Slaveowners had to be careful about letting their human assets go into unfamiliar areas, lest they be claimed by the Democratic "bushwhacker" paramilitary gangs that roved through the south, murdering blacks to instill a climate of fear that was supposed to prevent slave organizing, rebellions, or cooperation with abolitionist organizations in the north.

These kill squads preceded the Klan and the modern American police department, laying the groundwork for both. Protected by Democratic mayors and sheriffs, white men would just rove around the rural and urban south, cleaning the streets of blacks. This is Darren Wilson; this is George Zimmerman: the recurring Americanism of white people who hunt through the night for vulnerable blacks, confront them, and kill them, all the while genuinely believing that they are the "protectors" of their society. Elites only rarely sacrifice them; for hundreds of years, the aim of American financiers has been to shield their professional killers from punishment, in order to signal to others that the assassin's creed protects its own.

(If you follow Jesse James, who is mentioned later, you'll notice how even the "Unionist" government didn't give a good god damn about his murders--it was a private bastard with his own blood feud, Pinkerton, and some more-independent local sheriffs, who actually tried to catch him.)

Kike killing. Like Germany before the Holocaust, the Deep South well before the Civil War was largely abandoned by lighter-skinned, wealthier, non-observant ethnic Jews, who moved to the north ahead of the conflict to join the unionist Democratic factions. Darker, poorer, observant ethnic Jews often fled northern urban discrimination and settled in the south, where they were strong forces for abolition. This wasn't the phony, mealy-mouthed abolition that "northerners" frequently blabbered about in the decades before the Civil War, but real, on-the-ground abolition, where southern Jews would educate, feed, and speak out at personal risk for African Americans. These Jews were not sheltered in Manhattan offices, but living as small-town teachers, lawyers, and doctors, in the south, letting their kids play with black kids, associating with freed slaves, and generally wearing bullseyes.

The Democratic paramilitary gangs hit them hard, as the Ku Klux Klan, then later paramilitaries, were to do (if you can stomach Grisham, see The Chamber for a 1967 take). In terms of Jewish history and ethnography, many of these Jews didn't end up making it--the Confederacy, the Klan, and the Democratic Party managed to extinguish most of those voices, often literally, such that later American Jewry lost much of its practicing, orthodox component.

Jewish Aside

If you're into Jewish history, this is a very interesting period--the time when "Jewish," in America, ceased to have much to do with the Torah, Hebrew, or a personal relationship with God. America's deep south was used to kill off darker-skinned Jews, the survivors becoming further marginalized as old-fashioned and kooky (besides being more Middle Eastern in appearance), while their history was largely replaced and subsumed by a class of white atheists who used the term to indicate their comparatively newfound cultural identity. "Yahweh" became a metaphor for "our belief in each other," "kosher" became a mere health issue or cultural identifier, and Jews who were still actually Jewish became second-class laughingstocks.

Even today, in the most expressly racist, "pro-Jewish" society in the world, Jews will ban Israelis from the lunch counter if they think the person's genetics are "too Middle Eastern" or "too Arabic." Read the foregoing link--it describes an Israeli Druze IDF soldier, who had just finished loyally killing Palestinians in Operation Protective Edge, being barred from a pub because they didn't think he looked enough like the right kind of Caucasian Jew. Jews who question the ethnic supremacy of the light-skinned union-Democrat Jews are labeled as "self hating Jews," in much the same way that earlier generations of Caucasian Jews shifted the original, African-blooded, Jews away from being able to publicly claim the appellation "Jewish."

The Civil War

Eventually, the financing poured into the American paramilitary wasteland, and--a la Napoleon v. Britain--a profitably depopulating war was held. Europe's continental financiers strung along the comparatively pastoral Confederacy, making them think they might achieve backing against the industrialized pro-Londoners of the north, while President Buchanan--the penultimate Democrat--conducted endlessly incendiary sham-negotiations between the American north and the south, guaranteeing a terrible war as deftly as a modern-day Kerry ensuring an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Oh, what a "failure" for the "ineffective, hamstrung President," right? Yeah, just like how Cheney "failed" to predict the consequences for Iraq of removing Saddam Hussein in power. It's so terrible when unimportant humans die while your factory receives record numbers of gun orders and seizes vast tracts of land and natural resources, isn't it?

This was the cauldron in which the Jesse James legend was born--a separatist Democrat, James was just a murdering racist from a slaveholding family, who wished Missouri had joined the Confederacy. He never went to war, but he did work with a separatist Democratic newspaper to murder unionist families and random blacks during the war (see The Last Rebel of the Civil War for mounds upon mounds of good cites).

Boom boom, shoot shoot, die die. The Civil War looked so bad to so many, and the "separatist Democratic Party" so reviled worldwide, that the Democrats realized they couldn't hang onto the term "Democrat" for the whole system. They needed to find a new collective patsy to serve as counterpart, and they found it by having their unionist section form the "Republican Party." Now, instead of one Democratic Party, there were two! The Unionist Democratic Party, a.k.a. the Republican Party, and the Separatist Democratic Party, a.k.a. the Democratic Party. In the words of Darth Vader, the circle was now complete: the repugnant, incestuous marriage of cash and murder that would last for the next few centuries. The wedding between the "Democratic" and "Republican" parties of Mammon--the polygamously legitimized timeless rape-fest of the world's greatest usurers and eugenicists--was a dramatic one, but Lincoln played his part well, ensuring that the conflict could continue to pay dividends in shredded flesh for the next two hundred years.

One would think that, after defeating a "Democratic Party" (theoretically) devoted to the destruction of a nation, the said party would be disbanded. Similarly, one would think that, by invading a country dominated by murderous Islamist tribal warlords, the Islamist tribal warlords would stop being empowered. Ever hear of Afghanistan? Wrong. Fucking. Answer. The Democratic Party, like the Northern Alliance, remained in play, given license to dominate the south for nearly another ninety years. The Democratic Party's offshoot Republicans took credit for saving the Union, and used the credit to shield the other half of the propertied party from the destruction it surely deserved. Under the Republican mantle, Democratic leaders in the South laid down the Jim Crow laws and organized additional paramilitary kill teams, including former Confederate bushwhackers and the Ku Klux Klan, while still using federal funds to break up the old plantations into harvestable land that could be turned into cash funneled through New York and London.

Make no mistake, slavery was terrible, and the southerners were complete immoral idiots, their culture a wretched Democratic Party mess (albeit a different kind of Democratic Party mess than the plagued urban hells of Manhattan and its satellites). But the Reconstructed police-state nightmare that succeeded it was worse: a subtle, insidious beast that turned "owner" into "employer," and removed the financial incentive for rich scum to prevent poor blacks from dying too early. Freeing blacks without also granting them votes and equal protection under the law made them a Dilbert-like commodity, though one that couldn't at least use the capital loss caused by its own death to require a modicum of investment from an owner. Accordingly, "free employment," coupled with increasingly clever restrictions on life, improved the lot of major investors, who could now externalize the costs of sharecropping onto the sharecroppers themselves.

Ku Klux Kountry


Everyone thinks the Ku Klux Klan was one of the Democratic Party's greatest 19th century misdeeds, but the drama of the Klan tends to obscure the far greater numbers of Democratic killings conducted by un-costumed murderers with formal governmental sanction. The "bushwhacking" that had begun even before the Civil War continued in intensity, now that murdering a random black person was 100% guaranteed to not cause a capital loss to the owner. Now, every black person was a target, every Jewish person still alive a guaranteed collaborator, and anyone who didn't join you a potential Republican. As Johnson spoke about gooks; as Truman spoke about Japs and Chinks; as Obama spoke about Muslims; as Wilson spoke about Krauts: this is the phony Ku Klux Party, which cares far more about murder itself than it does about any actual racist agenda. Woe unto you, deceived racists of the past, who were so ably used. In one perspective, the Klan is just another one of the Democratic Party's many abused girlfriends, used for a while, then tossed aside when a new discrimination opportunity comes along. (Look sharp--here come the 1990s student diversity organizers! Oops, now it's a few years later--let's us Democrats all laugh about what a cunt Sarah Palin is, ha ha!)

(Since everyone loves the make-believe legend of Jesse James so much, I'll mention how) [T]he Jesse James work linked above provides a nice picture of Jesse James' part in this process, and again, it behooves us mention that this was open policy. In southern and western states, Democratic Party official policy was to drive off (by killing, or stealing, or burning out) white settlers, as well as any and all blacks. Democratic Party meetings would involve discussion between local Democrats about which "carpetbaggers" or "darkies" to murder in order to send a message that the Civil War wasn't forgotten, and Democratic voters exulted when they read about the killings. Many of them even took the killers into their homes, and made heroes of them, sheltering them from the occasional federal investigation--or more often, a staged local investigation, much like a Missouri grand jury, where taxpayers would gleefully throw money at whoever had killed a nigger, help the person hide out until the heat was off, and then go on with their normal murdering lives. Jesse James was just one of hundreds of ex-Confederate bushwhacker kill teams that survived for years in the south and the west, by being given food, horses, ammo, money, and days or months of shelter in the homes of communities who were happy someone was "taking care of them." The newspapers were filled with anti-black, anti-Indian, anti-Jewish, anti-Chinese, anti-almost-everything propaganda, proudly devoured by the burgeoning Democrats. (The "me so solly" Chinaman with the buck teeth makes an appearance in the literature of the time, joining, of course, the deliberately chimpanzee-drawn African American.)

Again, there is nothing remotely new about Darren Wilson, nor the vile community support for people who are proud to protect one of their own from international backlash when yet another black kid gets killed by some 70-IQ scumbag who trolls the darkness with his friends looking for uppity negroes to discipline. This has been a feature of American life for over a hundred years. Even after the Civil War, white households were proudly sheltering bushwhackers for murdering entire families of poor black sharecroppers.

We remember that these shootings, lynchings, and rapes were open policies to remind us why the Democratic Party is so evil as an ongoing entity. It wasn't that "the Democratic Party appealed to people who were racists," or "some/many members of the Democratic Party said bad things," but rather, that the party's formal plank, year after year, was these things. This was an intrinsic, fundamental crime of the Democratic Party. Like slavery, the Indian Wars, the invasion of Mexico, and the many to follow, the Democratic Party was founded on principles of, and has always been to this very day, an entity of consistent, vocal support for genocide, slavery, and paramilitary murder without trial. It is the worst and most dangerous entity on planet Earth; the foulest den of arch-lunatics and malignant bankers; the country club of child sacrifice and cash-bloated killers. Thoreau may have called it a disgrace to be associated with the American government, but it is far more vulgar an act to have even a brief association with that country's Democratic Party. The reason the Democratic Party so easily split apart into the Republican Party, then so deftly swapped a few members and viewpoints 90 years later for the Civil Rights Show, is because they're the same party, the same people, running perpetual cover for the same agendas.

No, "not all southerners were like that," and lots of white southerners were killed in the ethnic cleansing post-Civil-War--just as many black southerners were willing to turn on other slaves or freed blacks in order to gain blood money and personal power. Like the Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization, the Democratic Party loves attacking whites nearly as much as blacks, particularly when whites do abolitionist things like resist the free trade of commodified human beings.

Jesse James specifically carried out numerous targeted assassinations in this way: he would ride with a gang to the house of a white person who was known to sympathize with "the Union," ask them to come outside under some pretext (like, "look at my sick horse" or "whose farm is that over there?"), shoot them in the head, rob them, and then ride off. See a black guy or a suspected Union sympathizer on the road with a nice horse? Murder him and take the horse. Near the end of his life, James started robbing trains, which gave him a stupidly romanticized place in history; as for the other thousands of Democratic guerrillas, they're not remembered, and modern Americans drastically underestimate all their victims, which are blamed in popular memory on "the Klan."

Centuries from now, American (and British, and Anglo-American-influenced) police departments will be seen that same way. Modern America will be looked at like one gigantic Nazi Confederacy, so obviously, Godwinishly bad that it's not even a joke anymore, with a death toll of tens of millions of blacks dead peacefully in rape-prison and thousands of blacks being shot dead in the streets every year. This is its own Klan, the endless Klan, the worst thing on Earth. Your great-great-whatever grandkids could be watching a history video, wondering, "Grandma, did your grandma's grandma just sit there while the police were killing all those people?" Yes. This is all the Deep South. History will offer no quarter to massa's claims that, "They treat each other badly, too, therefore our murders are less hideous," because removed from the ridiculous context of modern police apologetica, that argument will stand out as the eugenicism that it is.

The trend of local authorities murdering black people for existing isn't only matched by modern American police departments, but by modern American popular opinion. When ex-Confederate bushwhackers murdered a black preteen they found playing in a field somewhere, no one arrested them, and the papers were full of proud letters to the editor hooting on the killings. So too with today's exterminators, who have slaveholder armies standing by to put down popular unrest after any given murder.

(But no, Obama does not intend to use his unilateral executive powers to send a drone after anyone who has just killed an American child. He prefers to drone children himself, so he understands his Klan all too well. Suggestion to al Qaeda: wear police uniforms, and Obama will let you kill as many Americans as you like. He'll also give you paid retirement and warn people not to be upset or use the collapsed towers as an excuse for violence.)

The paramilitary murdering process became formalized, eventually, in the addition of "police departments" to the former sheriff's office. Sheriffs still exist, enforcing bank foreclosures and repossessions where necessary, but the cornucopia of victimless crimes we have now is the direct descendant of the anti-terrorism monitoring birthed with southern Reconstruction. Like the cocaine wars of the 1980s black ghettos, or the Pinkerton agitations and battles of the early 20th century, the Civil War showed itself to be another Democratic Party modus operandi: sending instigators into a target population, inciting crimes, taking a partial fall, then using the turmoil as justification to intervene. That's the way the U.S. destroyed so many countries during the Cold War, once the Democrats honed their powers for full use on the world stage. The outright invasion of Mexico, and the slaughter of the aboriginal American tribes, would not do for a sustained image in the coming globalism--the Civil War was the practice pretext, preparing America to enter the imperial world by murdering Filipinos. Ever onward and upward.

It's kind of sadly cute how many racists now understand that the War of Northern Aggression was a clear police state action, but think that every time the U.K. or the U.S. invades Iraq, it's some kind of selfless, necessary act. Conversely, it's cutely sad how so many leftists now can heavily analyze the fraud involved in (at least some of the recent times we've been involved in) invading Iraq, yet how they look back on the Civil War as some kind of example of a heroic north saving blacks from slavery.

Jim Crow laws, and Reconstruction, were the model for the police state the Democratic Party wanted to impose on the entire country. At first, it began as an experiment against blacks, as prisons are now used to prep the population at large for a school-to-prison style life. Over time, with quiet insistence, Jim Crow laws, a constant professional standing army, and vast layers of an endless, expensive surveillance state, slipped into place upon everyone. The Jim Crow-styled regulations upon employment, personal behavior, communication, and group association have been an integral part of American legality for decades, though because they are now evenly applied, the American thinks there has been progress. The everyday monitoring of Reconstruction, and the climate of constant fear of paramilitary killings, made the post-Civil-War American south the ideal vision of the Demopublican Party's future. Endless years of an endless army of Darren Wilsons roving through the streets, backed by a creature that came to life in 1828, the oldest and most powerful political party on the face of the Earth...

John Grisham Had No Comment

I find it interesting that, were I to say, "Enough is enough, I'm not going to let them keep killing so many people like that, I won't be a part of it anymore and I'm going to stand up and die trying to protect my fellow human beings," and join the second American Revolution, or whatever, the first people arrayed against me would be a bunch of local black and brown cops and soldiers I know. They'd be loyal and indoctrinated, prepared for any moral argument I might offer; ready to defend the thin blue line and the system they love with all their hearts. They would say things about the rule of law, and the realities of dealing with poor street toughs, and how naive and stupid and heartless I was, and completely not see the numbers or the trends as anything worthy of merit. Complete non-issue; black and white; open and shut.

And there's something profound in that; something quintessentially American in the way that the Great Human Resource Department In The Swamp can always pull any phenotype out of its pocket to not only justify, but to lay life on the line, defending the workings of the grindery. Sure, Nat Turner had to face other slaves as enemies. Staggering, really, but there will always be prison snitches and traitors with purple fingertips.

When we look at this terrible morass, the sheer painfulness of the abounding evils and stupidities has to convince us, ultimately, that this isn't actually about race in the tiniest bit, but some far more primal wrongness in everything we're doing here.

. . .

USA Today accidentally ran article announcing no indictment before verdict was announced. Infotainment--cha-ching, baby! Their ineptitude remains high-larious. You think, when setting these things up, they'd make sure that all the operatives knew exactly what time to wait for. But the semi-independence of their operators is a flaw they can't yet figure out. Witnesses report two shooters in the theater, newspapers lament a school shooting ahead of time, and weeks later, the evidence is still there that they knew beforehand. How hard would it be to set up a few gmail accounts and tell them all ahead of time, "Wait to express surprise until you get an e-mail from me reading, 'the chicken is out of the cage,'" or something like that?

Monday, November 24, 2014

Recurring Cosby

Lie To Kick It.

The Media Centrifuge

The late 20th/early 21st century overlap of isms has been thoroughly interesting (as well, of course, as terrible), in some sense answering the question, "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" The answer, for Earth 2014 purposes, appears to be, "The immovable object is disproved." Ergo African Americans can get formally acknowledged as a group being discriminated against, by universities and governments and even the corporate media, and the public is highly receptive to messages that black men specifically are targeted for entrapment, extortion, theft, violence, and murder by an uncaring populace...and yet, within this very open American trope, it still remains almost completely acceptable to pop up out of nowhere and remember that a black man is a violent rapist.

Kind of weird, isn't it? Kill a black man yesterday, plenty of people are willing to acknowledge that you may have a problem. Accuse a black man of touching your privates fifteen years ago, and plenty of people are willing to acknowledge that the black man may have a problem.

"The people," such as they are, remain potentially more sensible than "the media," but the media does what it does, raising the question, "Why does the media allow itself to present two such ridiculously divergent narratives at the same time?" The media is on-theme with its vaguely weepy, do-nothing stance on cops killing black people; it shows a few clips, gravely discusses the issues, then waits for the next most-dramatic beating and/or shooting that gets greenlighted for mass coverage and conversations on race. Yet it's simultaneously able to pillory some old guy for the eeriest hearsay, like letting someone come forward in 2030 with repressed memories of having seen Darren Wilson shout, "Niggers die!" while he drove through the streets of Ferguson shooting people in the back (and/or a different person in 2032 with a repressed memory of having seen Michael Brown promise to "kill some honky cops tonight"). How reliable are either of the witnesses? My crystal ball tells me neither story would get very far, so how in the world does it work against Cosby? More importantly, considering the plasticky columnists and teevee-heads we're dealing with, how in the world do they think we can reconcile any of this?

There's always the possibility that this is a lame attempt to divert attention from Ferguson, pitting knee-jerk against knee-jerk, but eventually, even the stupidest, angriest viewers are going to become unable to figure out who the heroes and villains are supposed to be, unless you conclude both that 1) women are heartless, cash-hungry liars, and 2) black men are subhuman monsters. That's the only narrative that can blend these particular headlines into a coherent country--except, of course, that old conspiracy theory that elites are manufacturing media events in order to try to pin various social groups against each other so that people stop talking about "the 1%" anymore.

It's intriguing whether or not you think any given man "did it," ten or thirty years ago, in the same way that it's possible Michael Brown actually did think wrestling with an armed man in a bulletproof vest in front of multiple witnesses was a good idea (riiiiight, but who knows, right?). What in the world could explain these seemingly contradictory media frenzies, and this long pattern of "black male victims who leave bullet-ridden bodies behind" and "victims of black males who produce a lot of stories"? Just like with the American police, this is a battle with so many casualties over so many decades that you have to conclude either, "Black men are a subhuman race perpetually afflicted with violence," or, "There is a major systematic flaw in the American Anti-Sex League's way of processing allegations of who touched whose genitals."

Cosby Side Notes

A few of the media's arguments on both sides merit explanation for those who don't review this stuff often. Firstly, it's actually possible for someone to "repress" memories, but that doesn't mean we all have to pretend they aren't accessible. They're accessible, but it's very difficult to bring them out. In order to reconcile this with our current sense of reality, we all nicely pretend that repressed memories are inaccessible. We should try to strike a healthier balance between "completely forgot, then re-remembered" and "remembered, but really, really didn't want to think about it, and maybe that reason is so important it should be socially validated." So the complainers shouldn't be dismissed just because it was a while ago.

Secondly and thirdly, settlements and power: when you have money to make a lawsuit worthwhile, and someone sues you for a tort claim like sexual assault, it is often literally cheaper to buy them off than to fight them off. It's an immoral choice, because it rewards their behavior, but it's a cost of doing business in America. There are plenty of people who are very rich, but who don't quite have the connections and power to be untouchable. A Senator worth $7 million finds it much easier to rape than an actor worth $40 million, if the actor is a flash in the pan who didn't come from Hollywood's big producer lines. So we need to stop (1) equating popularity or net worth with power, because the two are often different, and (2) assuming that silence means lack of defense.

As to settlements: When you make a settlement, you're essentially telling someone, "It would cost me $100K in legal fees to make you go away, and you know that, and your lawyers know that, so here's $70K to shut up and vanish." In order to get that deal--$70K instead of $100K--you have to sign agreements promising not to talk about the deal later on. Years later, then, after having been the target of many campaigns, you're not legally permitted to explain what happened. So Cosby's "silence" can't be used against him. He had to promise it away under threat. Don't talk back to massa, as they used to say.

As to power: Cosby had the money to buy NBC back in the day, but he was shut out of the deal because he wasn't to be permitted that kind of control. To the media industry, he's like a Michael Jordan--a talent whom they're willing to buy off with a life of luxury, but one whose lineage isn't meant to stretch into several generations. When people like that try to establish future patents of nobility using their generationally-illiquid net worth, they turn up having sadly committed suicide, suffer a horrible and unforeseen drug overdose, die in a tragic car crash, get bombarded by sexual accusations from women with connections to the entertainment industry who need money, or, if they're rappers or in any way connected to something viewers will perceive as "street-like," fall victim to a horrific shooting. Money is not power in and of itself, in that world. The system needs the occasional suddenly-wealthy people to prove that the fight isn't fixed, but it can't allow the nouveau riche to know all the secrets, or they might be divulged. (That's why they hate the nouveau riche while pretending not to; because you can't be completely open around them.)

(What's that? Did you think it wasn't uncanny how many celebrities die, often young, of weird tragedies that were absolutely not planned by anyone malevolent? Must be one of those weird coincidences, like the way all those lone white gunmen never have any help every few years. No, of course it's normal. It's just, like, because they're so stuck-up, and all. And stressed out. Yeah, they're stressed out about being so popular and having so much money, that sometimes they can't afford the best doctors and they have no one to talk to and they worry that they've never reached anyone in their lives. And they just can't stop driving recklessly, those celeb clowns! Living so fast, those dunces! Ha! So sorry, so sorry, carry on. I was just joking. The world is actually a padded nursery. Nothing to worry about.)

Ergo Cosby is fair game. In Schwarzenegger, we saw someone who had no money establish a genuine line, and be blessed with blood-patronage to ensure a legacy. Women came after him, and it got buried. Cosby, though--like Mike Tyson, and Tupac Shakur, and other black men who try to get a little too involved in business without kowtowing fully to the right old lines--did not develop the same power. Many more credible allegations of abuse have been raised against Schwarzenegger, but he has the power, not merely the money, to make it go away. Cosby, being an asset rather than an owner, had to throw cash at problems, and even then it doesn't save him. He remains a performer, never permitted to become a comptroller. Will Smith, by lighter-skinned contrast, does what he's told, and looks to be establishing a settled corporate legacy, with predictably puke results on both the screen and the jukebox.

For a society of people who so avidly watch Game of Thrones, it's staggering how willfully blind Americans are to the idea that powerful women (and men) might use lesser women to bring down male rivals. Linda Tripp played Monica Lewinski right into Bill's pants, right down to the level of detail where she was ordering Monica not to wash the dress, but to save it for months to be exploited at a later point during negotiations. And we all believe in Karl Rove, right? You don't have to believe in Satan if you can believe in Karl Rove.


We can easily imagine Bill Cosby with long mustaches, cackling his way across the world for over thirty years drugging and raping women left and right without any apparent concern for getting caught, but we completely lack the capacity to fathom that some producers might've paid off people who had worked with Cosby in the past to cause a storm in late 2014. No men could possibly be that wicked! Didn't you get your memo on how the patriarchy works? It works by lone wolves groping inappropriately, but never by rich men financially coercing women into accusing other men of bad behavior.

Cosby had some big deals on major networks canceled because of these carefully-timed allegations, but surely the allegations are true, because we all know how hard it is for Americans to bring themselves to pass judgment on black men, particularly when a sex crime is involved. Juries and prosecutors take it so easy on black men that no sensible woman would ever dare to claim that a black man had raped her. And while we're at it, the American entertainment industry is full of decent, caring people, who are open, honest, and forthright, and who never try to back out of deals or backstab people.

Sigh, Nazis




Source: Germany, 1933. Photographer: unknown. Shortly after Hitler's election, the Third Reich began passing a series of laws designed to restrict Jewish commerce. Caption reads, "No Jews employed here," indicating that the business is "safe" for Aryans to shop in.

...

These next two are both from 2014, from an Israeli checkpoint at Ramallah, near a crumbling commercial development mostly occupied by Arab businesses. Photographs are by Jake Blum, a Dutch-Jewish art student:




Text on the second one reads, "Israelis stay safe, don't buy from Arabs!"

...

...

Okay, just kidding; here are the real pictures:


(Nazis, 1933, "Germans be safe, don't buy from Jews!"



(Israel, 2014, "No Arabs employed here.")

Saturday, November 22, 2014

President Bush: Don't Use Manhattan as 'An Excuse for Violence'

snip

As dying old men in gray suits debate whether or not to destroy Afghanistan, Asia, for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, President George W. Bush today — in an exclusive interview with HA News — urged the residents of the country, consider sharing this article with your friends on Facebook, and all others to “keep protests peaceful.”

“This is a country that allows everybody to express their views. Allows them to peacefully assemble, to protest actions that they think are unjust. But using any event as an excuse for violence is contrary to rule of law and contrary to who we are,” Bush told HA News chief anchor George W. $tephanopoulos during an interview conducted today in Las Vegas, buy a Dodge Ram with a powerful new engine and increased gas mileage and comfort.

A few crumbling old men are in the midst of determining if Afghanistan — which is far away, and which looks in our movies like it bears a lot of cultural similarities to other places that the collapsed building might bear some relation to - should be re-destroyed to make up for Manhattan, pick up a third copy of Frozen next time you're at the store, in fact, why not just order it now with a few clicks, and receive a free stuffed doll? It is known that a decision about Afghanistan was reached several years ago, but it’s expected to be announced soon.

On Thursday, Angelina Jolie is still alive and our app can improve your life with instant weather updates, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft called for increased investment ahead of anticipated military action, are you worried about your Thanksgiving dinner? because your local store can deliver it this Thursday and save you stress this holiday season, in the Persian Gulf, which White House insiders predict could cost up to $10 billion dollars and dozens of lives, get your XBox One ahead of the greedy Black Friday crowd on Target.com prepackaged with a copy of Frozen including inexplicably misplaced viewer's commentary by Christian Bale, stabilizing the region and bringing safety to...

snip

Assad warns America's Obama not to use chemical weapons

President Assad made clear to American President Barack Obama and those under his command that "the world is watching" and the continued use of chemical weapons against his own people in Ferguson would continue to be "totally unacceptable." If America does keep spraying those weapons into crowds in contravention of the Geneva Convention, Assad added, there will probably not be consequences. Anonymous but trustworthy Syrian officials told HA News, buy a Dodge Ram with a powerful new engine and increased gas mileage and comfort, that the American regime had ordered America's militarized domestic chemical corp to "be prepared." The officials stressed the directive was not an order to use chemical weapons and did not come from Obama directly, but that order and a considerable increase in activity around America's chemical weapons sites have raised serious concerns, if you don't buy each one of your nephews and nieces the Frozen Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack for Christmas you will burn in Hell, among international observers, Assad said.

snip

The Art of Klan Hunting: How America's Redemption Agency Found Darren Wilson

By Karl Dickwick Feb. 09, 2043 Add a Comment



A wooden chair inside a bullet-proof booth where Darren Wilson sat in (Dickwick sic) during his trial in 2035 is part of the display in the "Operation Finale" exhibit at Mortem Museum, the Museum of American Cleansing, in Sprawl #8, America, Feb. 7, 2043.

“Operation Finale: The Story of the Capture of Wilson” is a museum exhibition that chronicles the secret R.A. operation that stalked and captured Klan war criminal Darren Wilson from his refuge in White Plains, Kentucky, and smuggled him to Sprawl #8 to stand trial for his role in carrying out the Lengthy Solution. Have you had a PowerShake® today? Wilson was one of the chief foot-soldiers of Iteration Seven of the Cleansing, and the exhibit at the University of Sprawl #8 is satisfying in every possible way: fetishizing revenge; obsessing over historical grievances that no one is allowed to discuss on penalty of death; mentally masturbating to the power to end lives at will; and, laying eyes on the homespun artifacts of early spycraft that made good things happen, like if the Tower of London were a celebration instead of a historical horror, or the stubby metal needle that administered a sedative before the prisoner was led, dressed in the hooded uniform of his forebears, up the staircase of the magnatrain that carried him across the scarred plains. Obedience is safety.

The exhibit, at The Museum of American Cleansing (which sometimes capitalizes its "T," and sometimes not--Dickwick sic), has it all. Be sure to get your EuroPlague® inoculation before your lungs turn into powder and your genitals fall off. The exhibit includes Michael Brown's characteristic headphones; a lonely pack of half-finished Swisher Sweets; a postcard written to Wilson from Benjamin Bernanke, promising him a pleasant retirement for a job well done, and even the famous bloodstained jean jacket from professional spy Harold Shaft, who was instrumental in tracking down a number of Klan war criminals of that era, including George Zimmerman. The Redemption Agency cares about keeping your family protected.

"I mean, sure, they tried to hide," Shaft told patrons at the museum's opening in 2033, "but they were all over the web back in the day, and it was only a matter of time before someone recognized them. They let down their guard when they get a little older--they always do--and that's when it's time for them to remember the past." Report those who question authorities.

Remember that Blowjob the Clown® can transmogrify herself into any shape you can imagine, and she now lasts up to eight months with regular recharges, while folding up into an inconspicuous handbag when your cellmates barge in! Pressed for imagination? Purchase her deluxe package, which comes preloaded with ten thousand different forms, and you'll wear out before she does! Besides artifacts from the capture and trial, the museum holds the soft leather iPad case with a camera at the ready, its shutter activated by a button on the front pressed by an American agent who pretended to happen by the house on Podunk Street on day (Dickwick sic) in 2026, inquiring about investments in the area. Here are the pixelated images, captured at an upward angle, of the man calling himself "Bob Flynt": a porky bald figure with wobbling jowls, some quality of arrogance on display along with the actual prints. Terrorism begins in the home: watch your family as closely as you watch your co-workers.

PHOTOS: Hillary Clinton's Rise to Power

The agents didn’t think it was Wilson at first. But their sneaked photos were compared with a civilian portrait and the photo from his MCPD file – both also on display – by forensic experts who knew what to look at: Ears really don’t change, nor do capitals begin the first word after colons with a single subordinate clause, Dickwick sic. One expert sketched an oval of a head with 10 points of commonality enumerated on a piece of paper either brown in 2026 or faded since to that shade, like the Redemption Agency file on Wilson himself, code-named “Dybbuk,” the term for an evil spirit that penetrates the soul in Yiddish, a language originating from the Caucasus Mountains area of Europe, but entirely unrelated to Hebrew. Hard work is its own reward.

If you fail to get this year's EuroPlague® shot, your district's physician will be required to report you and those with whom you've come into contact to the Federal Containment Authority. The 11 agents dispatched to bring Dybbuk to Sprawl #8...

snip

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Homosexuals, Hypothetically (Part 2)

Hypothetical Homosexuals raises the scenarios, "homosexuality as pathogen" and "homosexuality as anti-creator," attempting to create schisms between different facets of your belief. The details of the examples themselves--scientists prove gay is disease v. Yahweh verifies creator-sponsored gay immorality--are mere cultural variations, unimportant in essence to the underlying themes.

Thought Experiment 1: The Pathogen

(a) Now that we know it's caused by a pathogen, the pathogen must be entirely eliminated, so that it doesn't affect anyone anymore. In modern America, that first choice is, deceptively, probably the hardest option to consider choosing. Decades of propaganda--however well-meaning--has year after year of successive humans being completely, or at least publicly, A-OK with homosexuality, while older non-public-approvers die off. Corporate entertainment, state education, and politicians push various forms of "acceptance," lending everyone the feeling of social progress while the bankers continue in the background, doing the same thing they've always been doing. So for many Americans, particularly superficially comfortable gay ones, even contemplating the utterly-fantastic thought experiment at issue--"does some really hard-to-find virus cause homosexuality?"--is a Complete. Intellectual. Stop.

It's like trying to get Christians to answer variations on the second thought experiment. They can't answer the question because their subconscious perceives the trap waiting farther ahead, so indignation is used to distract the conscious mind from its own ability to contemplate a true analysis of the issue, with offense justifying the inconsideration of something purely imaginative. There, it becomes very easy, and potentially absolutely necessary, to associate the question itself with the asker of the question--a much easier target for anger than the question itself.

A superficially confident gay man, of course, could have imagined the scenario by himself. And many, no doubt, have. "What if gay was a disease?" It's not hard to imagine. Being angry with someone for voicing the question is a way to shelter the mind from contemplating things it doesn't want to contemplate. In a phrase, cognitive dissonance.

That's not a response unique to queers or Christians, though. Adjust the knife in a few different directions:

Variation 1: In 2027, using powerful new microscopes, scientists identify a pathogen which is proven conclusively to be the cause of heterosexual inclinations. Humanity, it turns out, is naturally homosexual--a population control measure, biologists say, that was pivotal to our survival for tens of thousands of years, allowing us to breed heterosexually for deliberate reproductive purposes only, and prevent excessive strain on our environment. However, scientists say, five thousand years ago, the "heterosexual virus" was passed to us, and we began drastically overpopulating the planet, which will lead to our eventual doom.

See? Only a thought experiment. Do you A, disinfect everyone, B, disinfect everyone except a small population of lucky straight breeders, or C, commit suicide in horror?

Oops--did I just become an angry queer, calling straight people "breeders" and hiring low-income Hispanics to watch the Mongolian orphans I adopted for image purposes? Or would that be just as incorrect a leap as the earlier question being associated with any kind of anti-homosexuality? Now you see her, now you don't. Stop seeing her. Irrelevant.

On policy grounds--disease is bad--it's easy to pick "a," because it's "not fair" that people got infected and made gay. And the earlier, gay-pathogen example specified that no one already gay would be forced to be purified to straightness; rather, that future generations would be the ones saved from infection, and allowed to develop on their own (which in the thought experiment means zero future gays, because it's been hypothetically utterly proved that the only way to be gay is to be infected by the example-pathogen).

Could you be comfortably gay, want to stay infected, and want to live your life on your own terms, yet be able to choose (a) so that others could develop in their own natural way? Or is that too eerie--if you're gay, and you're presented with the example, does it sound so much like a mean-spirited accusation ("You're infected, it's not natural!") that you actually can't bring yourself to consider it? Why? People get polio; people get Alzheimer's; science does occasionally discover new things. People with degenerative neural conditions can forget what their spouses look like; forget how to drive; completely lose any trace of lust or sexuality. It's not entirely outlandish to contemplate sexuality being linked to something environmental. So why so afraid?

Do you imagine such an outcome as "the end of gayness"? (Which, if option [a] is chosen, it would be?) Is that unacceptable to you? (A world where no one else ends up that way.) If you didn't choose option (a) for a reason like that, and if you have the intellectual gumption to concede the truth to yourself, then you've learned something important about yourself: that your self-identity of "gay" (or whatever term you like) isn't actually about each person choosing/developing the way they feel inside. Rather, your self-identity has become something of a barrier against the outside world, which needs to be reinforced by others. If (a) is rejected for that reason, you're Franklin Roosevelt reintroducing polio into the water supply and banning the vaccine, so that you don't need to be alone in your wheelchair.

The same bitter result applies to straight people who wouldn't choose A in "Variation 1" above, where it was heterosexuality, rather than homosexuality, which was caused by a pathogen. If you were the only straight person in a world full of happy, thriving, content, successful gay people, would you be driven to force your sexuality on others? What if you were an astronaut whose ship crashed on an alien planet where a four-sex species of aliens nursed you back to health, and then you discovered, a-la Planet of the Apes, that Earth had been destroyed in a nuclear war centuries ago, and that you were the only remaining human in all the cosmos. Do you suddenly drop your straight identity and start having foursomes with the elephantine slime-trunks of your hosts? Can you maintain your sexual identity as the last survivor of your kind (and, do you even believe you have "a sexual identity"?)?

Discovering that you are the Sick One

(Imagining) Discovering that you are the sick one is meant to aid in contemplation of the nature of sickness and identity. Some of the wheelchair-bound can nobly advocate against the disease (or transportation policies) that crippled them, while still being content in their lives and personas; would the "diseased straights" or the "diseased queers" be able to be similarly noble? Or would they be too supportive of their respective lifestyles--their respective interest in different types of intercourse--to permit the mere thought of anyone freeing those to come? When you look at it that way, not eliminating the pathogen would be a terrible act, like randomly hammering legs in the nursery. Is your sexual identity so vitally important, yet so tenuous, that it must be assumed or forced on others in order to validate what you think you believe about yourself? And if so, what does that say about who you think you are, sexually speaking, that it would require forcing children to be like you in order for you to be content with yourself? If you're any gradation of anything that might potentially be called queer by a supportive community, you're probably aware of the ways that many sick straight people need to validate their insecurities by forcing children to mimic idealized behavior. So you certainly wouldn't want to refuse (a) for that reason.

Similarly, if you would choose (a) because homosexuality is bad in and of itself, then confront the thought experiment variation where the sexual "natural state" and the consequences are reversed. Cognitive dissonance appears in some straight people, now, because they cannot contemplate ever learning--even under the arms of an all-powerful (not "kind of" powerful, and not "only powerful in the ways I like, my own personal Jesus who approves of what I approve and disapproves of what I disapprove") God--that they were the flawed ones. So dissonance occurs, shielded by anger. "It's impossible!" Yet, imagination. If you're anti-homosexual, but have a developed enough character to consider the scenario, ask yourself--if I would eliminate the gay pathogen for interfering with the natural order, and the pathogen caused straightness, would I be willing to make the exact same choice in the other direction?

Could you be happy being the sick one?

(b) The pathogen should be eliminated from an uncontrolled spread, but it should be carefully stored, so that parents can choose if they want to infect their child and raise her/him to be homosexual or bisexual.

This one seems to be, essentially, a throwaway about parental control, as to homosexuality/bisexuality in the current climate. But it gets more fun if we vary it to heterosexuality, and assume that straightness is the disease. Is it then acceptable to force enjoyable-breeding status on a kid, so that a gay couple could enjoy their adopted child's biological grandchildren, and/or aid indirectly in the perpetuation of humanity?

The sneaky aspect to this answer is that it's just a variation of (a)--but with "parents," rather than "society," exercising the same degree of control over the not-yet-living. Of course we wouldn't feel that parents should have the power to pre-select their child's sexuality, but why would we be more comfortable with politicians doing it? You know the story--Obama has twelve-year-olds held in prisons in Turkey, getting raped and beaten and starved and killed. And no one gives a damn, because there's some kind of rationalization. If the guy across the street did that with a twelve-year-old, then tried to claim that he did it because "the Muslims" were out to get him, well...you know the consequences would be different for that particular murder. Even inside your own head. You'd at least call the police on the guy next door, but have you tried, even once, calling the police to make a report about the mass murderer in D.C. who needs to be hospitalized right now to prevent future slaughters? No, me neither, and I'm not going to. Why? Because it's the Milgram experiments, and Obama's wearing such a nice coat. Except none of the children are actors.

(c) Parents should be prevented from making the choice to infect a child with homosexuality, but once a person reaches the age of majority, s/he should be able to decide whether or not to be infected and become homosexual.

Easy "right answer," right? Except, how many men are going to hit 18, then decide that, instead of the cute girls on the cheerleading squad, they'd like to pay for a series of injections, which will make them become disinterested in said cheerleaders, and interested instead in going down on other men? Given modern America, it seems at first blush like a lot of people would choose that option, but really--if everyone was completely, totally, 100% straight (which, in the hypothetical, they are), then they'd approach the decision of becoming interested in [insert suitably appropriate, gross metaphor here, as to the opposite of your own preferences] with about as much enthusiasm as you would unpaid sex with John Kerry.

You might get a few nihilists or extremely depressed people choosing it, but if you'd grown up as a sexual straight, developed your own fantasies and desires over the years, the thought of being suddenly "made gay" by a shot, and completely becoming a different person, is almost never going to be chosen. Homosexuality would effectively end, just as in (a), until the (c) orientation-change labs shut down for lack of interest.

And, for the superficially confident homosexuals out there, are you comfortable with that? Can the thought be borne that, just as you wouldn't accept an injection to "become straight," a bunch of future straight generations would never accept injections to be changed into different people and "become gay"? (Or, that 0.4% of people would choose gay, and because they'd be very troubled beforehand, "gay" would become, in the future, a guaranteed definition of non-well-adjusted, just like it has been in the past?) Same issues as (a), and same resulting prompts about your own self-identification, if it requires some kind of social perpetuation to maintain.

Lots of really cool, weird possibilities inside that answer, though. Like, what if you and your business partner realized the business was doing really well, and wanted to be able to trust each other, so you went to the doctor to get injections to find each other irresistibly attractive? And then you got married, and for the rest of your life, you thought you were having the greatest sex ever with the hottest partner ever, but if you could ever "go back," you would have to immediately kill yourself out of shame? Imagine what happens if you gradually went off your meds...

Also, imagine what the Super-Duper Evangelicals could do, if they ever got their hands on the same technology. Forget India's arranged marriages--the right kind of drugs could make sure that every child born in an approved facility gets a genetic profile matching them to their future spouse, whom they will find (mutually) irresistible. Gayness solved! (Or straightness solved, depending on your dystopia.) In a thousand years, we could all look like Al Franken (with either long or short hair, depending on the sex the parents chose), yet find ourselves incredibly hot. We could become so committed to our looks that to alter them would be a crime. And everyone would have a sexy partner. And no one could complain about models anymore, because they'd all look like Al Franken.

There's a cool sci-fi series based around the premise of genetically arranged marriages, actually, but I've already written it, so don't even think of stealing my idea.

(d) The pathogen should be distributed to everyone, so that everyone becomes equally homosexual (or bisexual).

A touch of mandatory enforcement. Easy "no" answer, right? Of course, advocates of homosexuality itself would say, "but (a) is just the same, only for straightness!" Yes, but in this example, the pathogen is responsible for gayness. Therefore, pathogen goes, because pathogens must be bad.

Does that really change things? What if you believe that (A) God, or (B) super-cool randomized evolution, was the one who created the pathogen? Is it (A) part of God's plan that we turn gay, or (B) part of science's non-plan that we turn gay to better survive?

If you'd choose (a) not based on a generalized disapproval of homosexuality, but on an understanding of pathogens as bad, do you also eliminate straightness in the variation? If you don't want to eliminate the straightness trend, what does that say about your (a) answer?

Another wrinkle: if you're a Christian who adheres to upholding the Torah while accepting the ancient rabbis' murderous propositions for male on male, or someone who otherwise-devoutly believes homosexuality is evil, who should carry out the elimination of the "gay disease"? Government bureaucrats using tax dollars? Private citizens either eliminating or hoarding the pathogen based on their own wishes? Should wars be started to eliminate the pathogen from countries which refuse to remove it from their own ecosystems?

(e) The pathogen should be studied further, then mutated into different varieties, so that, upon reaching the age of majority, people can choose whether to remain heterosexual, or to become homosexual, bisexual, ambisexual, pansexual, attracted to desired species of animals, or attracted to inanimate objects or situations of their choosing;

(f) The pathogen should be left alone, meaning that many people will be infected when they didn't choose to be, and that others will not be infected if they would have chosen to be.


(e) is a trick right answer; the mutation stuff, just like the "choose to be gay" situation in (c), is a throwaway. The pathogen should be studied further, and until then, otherwise left alone.

A concession to gayness? Hardly. Either extreme of a deranged moral stance misses the interconnected nature of the ecosystem. Does the pathogen, or does homosexuality itself, effect a kind of natural balance vital to humanity's survival? It's a bit cheap to ask that question of the pathogen, within the context of these thought experiments, but homosexuality is the real variable of interest, here. The pathogen is just its pawn. Around here, we generally understand something about what homosexuality looks like, just as we know the same about heterosexuality, but we understand little-to-nothing about what they actually are. Determining that homosexuality is "linked to genes" is as worthless to Earthlings as their current plays at spaceflight, because under a rubric of randomized capitalistic evolution, this solar system hasn't even begun to understand what genes are doing; it's like translating a written language as a project of representative visual art without realizing that all the pretty shapes are a language.

Going Further with Pathogens

I. Does homosexuality increase as population density increases out of proportion to sustainable growth, reducing birthrates in a healthy way, without requiring conscious eugenics? (Cheat sheet: yes. Ships, prisons, Greek city-states, Louis and Philippe. But treat this parenthetical as a typo if you prefer.)

II. Does homosexuality increase as social sanction for life-pairing heterosexual mating relationships decreases, filling antaphological voids in unwillingly isolated individuals, and providing thereby a temporarily corrective aggregate influence on the reproductive process?

III. Does homosexuality increase in proportion to parentless-ness, providing child-unburdened adults for parent-unburdened children?

If any of this were true, then new contemplations would arise:

Firstly, does being a homosexual under such a model mean being a mere tool of nature? If so, yes--but so does being straight. There's no offense to be taken. Ride the lightwaves.

Secondly, would eliminating homosexuality when it naturally occurs be a precursor to a system crash? Not necessarily, but it could/would certainly be a component of one. Triclosan and MRSA come to mind, as there's a tendency in the ignorant to see a problem and think, "The problem is the problem." That's how both modern medicine and white supremacists work: there are no causes, only problems, ergo destroying any given symptom is considered curative. Our only mistakes (if any), they say, are not taking swifter action to redress symptoms, and to hell with the causes. E.g., if homosexuality is a gross problem, but it was brought on by a bunch of idiot straight people who couldn't maintain a healthy ecosystem, will eliminating homosexuality improve anything? More likely (in such a hypothetical situation, which would dovetail with the rise of the Athenian Empire, the proliferation of boy-rape, and the cult of Western Civilization), the anti-homosexuality crusaders are, ironically, the equivalent of AIDS for Earth (or not so ironically, if you've read Dark Alliance and connected the dots to other elite-targeted communities of the era, such as, say, Africa).

Treating symptoms instead of causes is merely palliative; it is something done in preparation for death. Ergo its attraction to antilife.

Such a point of view--offensive in hundreds of ways--seems to lead to the idea that homosexuality is a disease resulting from infection, but in such a hypothetical situation, nothing could be farther from the case. Homosexuality, under such a thoughtform model, would be akin to an antibody; a manifestation of a healthy ecosystem compensating for the predictable results of a bunch of creditor-priests, just like heterosexuality is a different kind of healthy manifestation. So don't be offended at being a cell in a body, or a symptom of something; we all are.

There are easily-imaginable ecosystem consequences for homosexuality, but there are many others that aren't so easily imaginable, which is why somehow "eliminating" it would be like making everyone drink triclosan for breakfast each morning. E.g., bad. People will people, including feeling inexplicable inclinations to do stuff like reproduce or not reproduce, and trying to drug ourselves to dampen immune response (which remains, non-coincidentally, medicine's preferred response to many of those wackily random post-industrial diseases that just popped out of nowhere), centralizing reliance on singular health networks, will prove just as unpleasant for the planet as immunotherapy (e.g. immuno-killing) for the human.

Continued in Part 3.

When we fear losing

We like to fantasize about having nothing to lose, because in such a situation, we can finally show "the real me!" unrestrained by burdensome social expectations. If only zombies would cause the collapse of civilization; if only carbon emissions; if only a fatal war with the Sino-Russian Alliance; then, then we could be completely true to ourselves, no doubt. What if we had terminal cancer and were past the "sad" stage and onto the "preparation" stage, or what if we went to hell, or got locked up in prison for life? Finally, released from all the burdens. Finally, we could be honest with ourselves about how ruggedly survivalistic we truly are. No more holding back when the manager at Sports Authority tells us those branded trainers were mislabeled, and the price is actually more than $4.95! Finally, being constrained at the grocery store only by the number of laden carts we can push at once, and whom we can knock down in the produce section before they see us. We too could be as powerful and independent as our imaginary homo erectus forebears, solving once and for all the riddle, "How did such as weak and dependent as I make it this far with such a rickety set of genes?"

We know we could do it. All the bottled water will surely be ours! Finally, we have to let all our lusty lust and our forlorn gluttony out of the bag, because it's necessary to impregnate the few remaining human females (for the survival of the species, and not because we know Lot was a naughty fantasy rather than good advice), and to get all the preserved calories we can shove into our maws (because it's the sensible thing to stock up, and not because feeling duty-bound to eat a bag of Snickers is what we always wanted). Thank God the government has stopped pretending it cared, so that now, now, at last, we can do what we really want, and defy them without any fear of losing their false approval. The world can become GTA, free of constraint, where everyone else is an NPC that gives you points if you click extra hard.