Boot Kamp
Kurt Vonnegut, in his classic novels of the '60s, created the concept of the chronosynclastic infundibulum, a kind of flaw in spacetime. If one enters one of these infundibula, one sees all points-of-view at once.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
There is in most of us a kind of tension between these two statements:
I respect people who take a stand for what they believe in.
I fear people who are too certain of what they believe in.
For example: suppose John Doe chains himself to the door of an abortion clinic to keep people from entering.
To those who agree with him, he is a hero for "taking a stand" and saving the lives of innocents.
To those who do not, he is "a dangerous fanatic" who is denying women control of their bodies.
Is there some chronosynclastic infundibulum where we can see both these viewpoints, in stereo, to get some perspective, some hope of actual truth?
Short answer: Probably not. At least not as long as each side denies that the other's point of view even has any validity.
The longer answer follows.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
Perhaps that was a bad example, because now some people are going to think that this is a posting about abortion.
It isn't. It's a posting about division and fairness.
(So if anyone writes to tell me why John Doe is a hero or a why he's a dangerous fanatic, I'm going to just delete your comment. You've been warned.)
Right now, it seems to me that we as a nation (perhaps more than a nation, perhaps the whole species) have reached a point where we can't be wrong. We can't even acknowledge that someone who disagrees with us has a valid viewpoint, because if we do, we're admitting that we might be wrong. We can't even allow that possibility.
(I'm not taking a wiser-than-thou viewpoint, by the way; I'm as bad about this as anyone.)
There's something about our situation that makes seeing any good in our opponents' points of view terribly frightening. This is far more dangerous, in my opinion, than any specific point of view, because it erodes the possibility for compromise and dialogue, for solving problems instead of making them worse.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
As most of you probably know, I am a white male. I am about to spill the beans on the White Male Conspiracy.
Yes, it's real. No, it isn't concsious. That is, nobody inducts you into it at a certain age.
But you gradually come to realize that it's real, and that its basic strategies are (1) divide and conquer and (2) total criminalization.
Like for example, abortion.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
Okay, whoa, wait a minute. I already said that this isn't an abortion posting. I'm using it as an example again.
Also: I am against making abortion illegal. I don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. OK? Is that clear?
So: Abortion is a part of the White Male Conspiracy.
Whoooa, waitaminnit, what did he just say?
Yep. Abortion was invented by males, for the benefit of males. It's just a way of getting laid without consequences, commitment, or relationships. It sticks women with the consequences, the risk and (in many cases) the guilt. And, really, who but men would come up with the idea of treating a child as a bit of trash to be taken out?
Nonetheless, it frees women, too. And we can't have that.
So the deal is, what we White Male Conspirators want to do is, keep it available but make it illegal.
This is the most basic tactic for implementing the two strategies above.
Women, the white male powerbrokers do not care whether you have an abortion or not; they'd probably just as soon you did. This way, it drives a wedge between people, and if they get their way, it will also make you a criminal.
Criminals don't speak up. Criminals don't run for office. Criminals try to keep themselves as unnoticeable, as innocuous, as possible. Criminals are not revolutionaries.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
Total criminalization is also how we keep blacks in their place.
Did you ever stop to wonder why a music industry dominated by white males pushes gangsta rap? It ain't just because it sells, my friend. It keeps the n-words in their place by encouraging them to destroy their brains with crack and crank and shit. Plus, if they're killing each other, they ain't gunning for us.
Folks, the sixties scared us. Women and blacks and gays got all uppity, and it almost worked.
It cost us a perfectly good war, where we were sending all sorts of black folks to get their asses shot off, and the only way we put you back to sleep was by making Nixon quit.
You thought you'd won.
Surprise.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
Okay, enough sarcasm. If you're wondering, yeah, I really believe that a lot of this is true.
In voce, I was describing the total criminalization aspect of the Basic Conspiracy Strategy; now I go back to my main theme, which is divide and conquer.
With the mask off, I have to say, frankly, that it isn't really a White Male conspiracy as such. That is, most white males aren't part of it. We benefit from it, but only coincidentally: we benefit by retaining our unearned privilege. It's important to them that white males remain a relatively-privileged class, not because they're white males - though of course they mostly are - but because the presence of a relatively-privileged class is an important facet of the overall strategy of division and conquest. It gives everyone else someone to resent; it makes us fear everyone else.
It's obvious at a glance that they are not the Evangelical Christians that so many of their front-men currently portray.
Note, please, that I am not saying that the front-men aren't really Evangelical Christians. For one thing, I don't presume to know what is in their hearts; and for another, the best judas-goat is a real goat.
And that's what they are, judas-goats, leading sincere and mostly good-hearted Christians to perform abominations in the name of God and murder for the sanctity of life. Whatever their motivation is, their masters only want to keep that conflict going, to keep Evangelicals at the throats of Humanists, when the truth is both have more in common with each other than either do with them.
They aren't actually interested in any of the things their front-men - any of their front-men - yatter about. In fact, they don't want the front-men to talk about what they really care about. It can't be brought out into the open.
The masters are interested in one thing and one thing only: Power. As Orwell observed in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the object of power is power. (Orwell's mistake was having O'Brien tell Winston Smith what was going on. No way he'd ever say it out loud:)
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.
The boot is real.
The face is yours.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
There is in most of us a kind of tension between these two statements:
I respect people who take a stand for what they believe in.
I fear people who are too certain of what they believe in.
For example: suppose John Doe chains himself to the door of an abortion clinic to keep people from entering.
To those who agree with him, he is a hero for "taking a stand" and saving the lives of innocents.
To those who do not, he is "a dangerous fanatic" who is denying women control of their bodies.
Is there some chronosynclastic infundibulum where we can see both these viewpoints, in stereo, to get some perspective, some hope of actual truth?
Short answer: Probably not. At least not as long as each side denies that the other's point of view even has any validity.
The longer answer follows.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
Perhaps that was a bad example, because now some people are going to think that this is a posting about abortion.
It isn't. It's a posting about division and fairness.
(So if anyone writes to tell me why John Doe is a hero or a why he's a dangerous fanatic, I'm going to just delete your comment. You've been warned.)
Right now, it seems to me that we as a nation (perhaps more than a nation, perhaps the whole species) have reached a point where we can't be wrong. We can't even acknowledge that someone who disagrees with us has a valid viewpoint, because if we do, we're admitting that we might be wrong. We can't even allow that possibility.
(I'm not taking a wiser-than-thou viewpoint, by the way; I'm as bad about this as anyone.)
There's something about our situation that makes seeing any good in our opponents' points of view terribly frightening. This is far more dangerous, in my opinion, than any specific point of view, because it erodes the possibility for compromise and dialogue, for solving problems instead of making them worse.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
As most of you probably know, I am a white male. I am about to spill the beans on the White Male Conspiracy.
Yes, it's real. No, it isn't concsious. That is, nobody inducts you into it at a certain age.
But you gradually come to realize that it's real, and that its basic strategies are (1) divide and conquer and (2) total criminalization.
Like for example, abortion.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
Okay, whoa, wait a minute. I already said that this isn't an abortion posting. I'm using it as an example again.
Also: I am against making abortion illegal. I don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. OK? Is that clear?
So: Abortion is a part of the White Male Conspiracy.
Whoooa, waitaminnit, what did he just say?
Yep. Abortion was invented by males, for the benefit of males. It's just a way of getting laid without consequences, commitment, or relationships. It sticks women with the consequences, the risk and (in many cases) the guilt. And, really, who but men would come up with the idea of treating a child as a bit of trash to be taken out?
Nonetheless, it frees women, too. And we can't have that.
So the deal is, what we White Male Conspirators want to do is, keep it available but make it illegal.
This is the most basic tactic for implementing the two strategies above.
Women, the white male powerbrokers do not care whether you have an abortion or not; they'd probably just as soon you did. This way, it drives a wedge between people, and if they get their way, it will also make you a criminal.
Criminals don't speak up. Criminals don't run for office. Criminals try to keep themselves as unnoticeable, as innocuous, as possible. Criminals are not revolutionaries.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
Total criminalization is also how we keep blacks in their place.
Did you ever stop to wonder why a music industry dominated by white males pushes gangsta rap? It ain't just because it sells, my friend. It keeps the n-words in their place by encouraging them to destroy their brains with crack and crank and shit. Plus, if they're killing each other, they ain't gunning for us.
Folks, the sixties scared us. Women and blacks and gays got all uppity, and it almost worked.
It cost us a perfectly good war, where we were sending all sorts of black folks to get their asses shot off, and the only way we put you back to sleep was by making Nixon quit.
You thought you'd won.
Surprise.
*
* *
* * *
* *
*
Okay, enough sarcasm. If you're wondering, yeah, I really believe that a lot of this is true.
In voce, I was describing the total criminalization aspect of the Basic Conspiracy Strategy; now I go back to my main theme, which is divide and conquer.
With the mask off, I have to say, frankly, that it isn't really a White Male conspiracy as such. That is, most white males aren't part of it. We benefit from it, but only coincidentally: we benefit by retaining our unearned privilege. It's important to them that white males remain a relatively-privileged class, not because they're white males - though of course they mostly are - but because the presence of a relatively-privileged class is an important facet of the overall strategy of division and conquest. It gives everyone else someone to resent; it makes us fear everyone else.
It's obvious at a glance that they are not the Evangelical Christians that so many of their front-men currently portray.
Note, please, that I am not saying that the front-men aren't really Evangelical Christians. For one thing, I don't presume to know what is in their hearts; and for another, the best judas-goat is a real goat.
And that's what they are, judas-goats, leading sincere and mostly good-hearted Christians to perform abominations in the name of God and murder for the sanctity of life. Whatever their motivation is, their masters only want to keep that conflict going, to keep Evangelicals at the throats of Humanists, when the truth is both have more in common with each other than either do with them.
They aren't actually interested in any of the things their front-men - any of their front-men - yatter about. In fact, they don't want the front-men to talk about what they really care about. It can't be brought out into the open.
The masters are interested in one thing and one thing only: Power. As Orwell observed in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the object of power is power. (Orwell's mistake was having O'Brien tell Winston Smith what was going on. No way he'd ever say it out loud:)
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.
The boot is real.
The face is yours.