Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Labels that Safeguard America

Dear George,

The beauty of America’s one-party system is its efficiency at eliminating inconvenient candidates who become a little too populist for comfort. America is a white, male oligarchy, first, last and always. No candidate who dreams of empowering the people has a snowball’s chance in Hell of occupying the Oval Office until the oligarchy has leeched any and all populist impulses from said candidate.

Arbitrary labels are the desiccants that turn a candidate’s populist dreams into dried pods in an empty shell. The best labels are those that divide and weaken.

It is a fact that both HillBill and bamaobama are getting a little too populist for comfort. It is tempting to dismiss their rhetoric as so much posturing to garner votes. The problem is that when a candidate raises the mob’s expectations, the mob puts pressure on said candidate to deliver once he or she is in office.

So the oligarchy has rolled out the two labels that stand the best chance of neutralizing them both: race (with its implication of black militancy) and gender (with its implication of bra-burning feminists). These labels are precious jewels guaranteed to divert America’s attention from a crumbling economy, the upward flow of capital and foreign enterprises that are trashing America both at home and overseas.

The most powerful labels are those grounded in illusion. The use of “race” overlooks the fact that race is a false category that has no basis in reality. To imply great differences between individuals on the basis of insignificant morphological differences is pure fantasy, which is why it works so well.

The misuse of feminism is grounded in the belief that feminism refers to gender, i.e., all feminists are females. The assumption is flawed. Unless someone can prove that Margaret Thatcher was a leading feminist, the relation between feminism and females remains a fiction.

Feminism is the belief in the emancipation of all subgroups denied their full humanity by a dominant, white male elite. Any woman who emulates the values of this elite is not a feminist.

A true feminist candidate would step up to the podium and declare, “The reason missiles appeal to males is that they are so phallic. This is why men willingly throw billions of dollars at their creation and upkeep. The sight of a massive hard on pointing towards the heavens sends waves of pleasure coursing through their bodies. Tragically, the money they spend on their toys is inexcusable in a country where twenty-five percent of rural children live in poverty and 3.1millions households suffer from hunger. Sorry men, but when I take office the Pentagon goes to the end of the line when the money is handed out. They get whatever is left over once hunger and poverty are eliminated, and our infrastructure has been repaired.”

Where the male elite exploits and conquers, the feminist nurtures and comforts; where the male elite destroys, the feminist builds; where the male elite seeks peace through power and intimidation, the feminist seeks peace through dialog. The woman who advocates power and destruction is not a feminist. This is what makes the label so effective against HillBill.

Rest assured that there will never be a feminist president as long as the white, male oligarchy frames the issues. Nor will America ever see a black president as long as there is a race card to be played.

So invite Mad Dog McCain to the White House he can scope out the Oval Office to see how he would like it decorated once he is inaugurated.

Your admirer,
Belacqua Jones


Mark Prime (tpm/Confession Zero) said...

You've done it again, young man!

The Peace Tree...

Case Wagenvoord said...

This one kind of wrote itself

Mark Prime (tpm/Confession Zero) said...

Gotcha... Labels are as worthless as flags...

Mark Prime (tpm/Confession Zero) said...

By the way, the Peace Tree (me) used an excerpt from this letter...wonderful as it is.