Again we have the following from Tom Baugh’s book, “Starving the Monkeys: An Entrepreneurial Horror” (continuing from the quote in my 01/26/2010 entry):
Today, some modern economists claim that tornados[sic] are beneficial in that they stimulate jobs in the recovery. I disagree, as undoing the damage done merely represents the rollback of some previous -∆Q. But, if those same modern economists are to be believed, then their ideas would also argue that the recovery from a thermonuclear war would also be equally beneficial. Think of all the jobs that would be created if all those A Country cities and neighborhoods were rebuilt from scratch. After all, the ore and the aggregate and the limestone still lies there intact, untouched by the evil neutron. And by the time this rebuilding has been completed, the effects of the short-term fission products will have faded into meaninglessness.
But this line of reasoning requires boldness, and reliance upon the individual, and the relinquishing of fear. The monkey collective must not allow this sort of thought.
And so, the response of the collective throughout those early decades of the Cold War was to deride the thinkers, military and civilians, as war-mongers and naive. The best representation of this derision was in a cleverly spun film by Stanley Kubrick [“Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”].
This movie, which was required viewing at the Naval Academy, accurately reflects the ethic of the monkey collective. Fear and prejudice and weakness are lauded by the collective as virtuous. Individual effort and achievement are derided as naive and hopeless. Patriotism to the ideal of liberty is presented as outdated and foolish, while only compliance to the collective and weakness is considered strength. Films such as this don’t propagandize the collective any more than politicians deceive the collective as they rob us blind.
Instead, politician and film-maker and reporter alike merely respond to their respective markets. The collective demands that the politicians steal from the individual on its behalf. And so they do. Similarly, the collective demands that the film-maker and the reporter deride the individual, and make him more susceptible to the theft. And so they do. In all the many ways in our world that the collective steals from us and derides our most hallowed institutions, they do so at the command of the monkey electorate and market.
But a nuclear-tipped Cold War wasn’t enough to promote fear and compliance. After all, the Soviets might collapse some day, they reasoned. Or the LeMays or Pattons or Al Grays or Rickovers that hadn’t yet been ferreted out might just be too good at their work. Accordingly, Biff and Muffy, the suited representatives of the collective, needed a replacement or two waiting in the wings.
So, after it appeared that the Cold War was firing up to full heat, the monkey collective decided on the dick move of their time. To create another festering sore of resentment, in 1948, the worldwide monkey collective relocated a band of those hapless Jew survivors into Palestine. And created both the state of Israel and a myth of a destruction of the state of Palestine, a nation which never actually existed but fills the role of victim nicely. In this example, the collective managed to instantly create victims on both sides. If you oppose Israel, you must be a holocaust denier. Conversely, if you favor Israel, you must hate Allah and property rights. No one wins but the collective that feeds on the conflict. And which requires your sacrifice to feed it.
From the point of view of the Palestinian, you can see why they would be upset. Imagine if a whole bunch of homeless people were transported into my old drywall neighborhood in Forsyth County. In so doing, perhaps I and all my neighbors and our families were deported to, say, Utah. As a reaction to this injustice, we would imagine a sort of national unity that didn’t exist at all before the deportation. Maybe we would demand a Forsythian state and refuse to admit the legitimacy of the homeless community. We might even form the Forsythian Liberation Organization. I would also be highly motivated to go back to my old neighborhood and have it out with the homeless. They, in turn, would then be motivated to form some security organizations like the Hossad. Biff and Muffy, who started this mess because they thought it would be nice to help the homeless, would be equally happy to sell both sides weapons. Or collect our votes.
On the other hand, a group of our oil-rich relatives, perhaps in Texas, might decide to cash in, too. Now, assume that our relatives in Texas practice a religion with a central tenet of hospitality to the displaced. Following their own principles, our relatives might be inclined to promote a Forsythian state in the middle of the Texas desert. And then fund our business startups[sic], at zero interest, also in keeping with their religious tenets.
But, our Texas relatives might find their individual purpose served better to keep us riled up. And recruit us to go blow up their political enemies in the name of Forsyth, even if these enemies had absolutely nothing to do with the original conflict in question.
The victims on both sides of this conflict are being sold a bill of goods. It was easy enough to con a bunch of holocaust survivors into hopping a boat to the promised land. After starving in a death camp for a few years while my former neighbors turned a blind eye, I would understandably be a little wary of moving back in next door to them. I would also probably turn a blind eye to their understandable fear of defying the then-prevalent authority. If some slick marketing came my way about moving to the Biblically-assured Promised Land I might be inclined to go along.
From an outsider’s perspective I would be a little surprised that the boat was heading southeast instead of west, though, given that America is the Promised Land for all peoples. This is supposed to be the place that producers of all stripes come to make their way in the world. Had the forces of nice wanted to really give all those Jews a home, the answer to that question was almost obvious. Buy a goodly-sized farm in Kansas, and hand those craftsmen and merchants hammers and paper. And create New Jerusalem right here in the middle of the continent. Of course you would also have had to slap some sense into their Marxist elitists, but I don’t see that as a downside.
This reasonable approach would have left the Palestinians to run the hotels to host the New Jerusalemites on their lucrative pilgrimages to the Old Jerusalem historical sites. After all, Jew, Christians and Moslems lived in relative harmony in that area for centuries prior to 1948. So, in that climate, why wouldn’t the Palestinians welcome their long-ago brothers with open arms today? But then there wouldn’t be all that discontent, now would there? Instead, we have to ask some Kansas farmer kid to go fight a string of wars for reasons for which he is woefully unprepared to even comprehend.
While the earlier post-armistice duplicity stirred up dissent on only one side, this improved model creates dissatisfaction on both sides. This new model was so effective at manufacturing deep political compliance of the victims and their allies that it was worth repeating, but with one slight tweak. The problem here is that the forces of nice are too easy to identify as the source of the conflict itself. After all, those homeless people didn’t just swim the Chattahoochie and truck us away by themselves. They had some help, and the help doesn’t like getting blamed.
Enter the peace-keeping mission.
The beauty of the peace-keeping mission as a political compliance tool is that the guilty parties can remain comfortably out of sight. Conflict is a universal constant of human existence, usually between one party which has something and another that wants it without having earned it. With this natural force at play, this mission also doesn’t require any startup costs. Once conflict sprouts, tender care and rhetorical watering can ensure that it can blossom into a full scale crisis. At that point, the forces of niceness can spring into action to oppose whatever side seems to be winning at the moment. This approach is guaranteed to win the hearts of female voters of either gender, as it provokes their boo-boo kissing nature.
Unfortunately, the fact that this approach is unreliable in identifying the oppressing party is of no consequence for the purpose of eliciting political compliance. After all, the emerging victor may actually be applying the pipe to the knee of some jerk who deserved the treatment. All that is needed is a victim to aid, ethical considerations or judgment having no impact.
And so on--You get the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment