Resource icon

Cafe Zoo

Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

It seems to confuse even some of my fellow zoophiles, whenever I point out the parallels between the zooey community's challenged relationship with society and the past struggles of the LGBT community. Often, I hear even my fellow zoophiles citing the same tired arguments as the people that hate us as to why they think that that relationship remains so profoundly sour.

I maintain that the reasons for society's scorn have nothing to do with bad faith arguments based on ill-conceived pop philosophy. You could use exactly the same arguments, based on distorting and abusing the language of "consent," to paint somebody as monsters, including the LGBT community. In Russia, the same system of argument is really being used: based on the reasoning of the Russians, LGBT activists are wrong because, from the standpoint of the Russians, children should have a right to grow to adulthood without ever being exposed to "gay propaganda" first, and then, if they still choose to be gay as adults, then that is their own free choice. Therefore, gay people in Russia have been driven violently into the closet, and anybody that does any kind of public pro-LGBT activism at all is beaten and, in some cases, hunted by police. The lack of any amount of advocacy has led to the people that are spreading messages that demonize LGBT having almost unlimited ability to spread their own messages while LGBT are directly and deliberately persecuted by the law and often forcibly deplatformed on Russian social media.

At one time, I hated the Russians for this, but over time, I have come to recognize that what the Russians are doing to LGBT is not worse than what people in western society are doing to us zoophiles. Ironically, understanding that and acknowledging that has helped to calm a lot of my anger and prejudice toward the Russian people. I am not really justified in judging their people for crimes that are commited against one group of innocent people when similar crimes are being committed against another group of innocent people in my own country.

Those bad faith arguments based on ill-conceived pop philosophy are hollow, though, and they have absolutely nothing to do with why a society can turn against you. They use whatever pop philosophy is socially popular at the time for soothing their own conscience and attempting to explain to themselves how they are not really monsters for their aggression, but in the end, they would have used whatever language was popular, at the time, for demonizing misunderstood groups of people in their culture. Those arguments really mean very little. They are empty, and refuting them by any means whatsoever is ultimately a waste of time.

In the end, the LGBT community tends to have an incredibly good relationship with mainstream western society because they have spent several generations laboring and sacrificing for that good relationship. They have worked on improving their communication with their peoples, and they have worked to act with a sense of positivity and cooperation with society. For instance, when society was concerned about the spread of HIV in the gay community, the entire LGBT community rallied around helping join the rest of society in doing everything they could to help the fight against HIV and the AIDS it caused. They got themselves on the side of their societies, and their activists showed a genuine desire to help their community live healthier and more positive lives as members of their society.

In the end, I maintain that the only meaningful difference, between the zooey community and the LGBT community, is several generations of hard work. I would even say that the same thing distinguishes the zooey community from the Jewish community in the western world: organizations like Anti-Defamation League and similar organizations have worked very hard to fight against prejudice and hate toward the Jewish people and eventually have helped to fight against all hate groups.

I maintain the point-of-view that a long-term commitment to working on our relationship with society and helping to build up a more positive relationship with society is the only rational way for us to behave. The consequences of not doing so are something that we zoophiles can see happening to LGBT in Russia: the plight of Russian LGBT is not really due to something especially evil about Russians, but something went wrong in getting their pro-LGBT organizations to come together in an organized way. For the same reasons why Russia's LGBT activist community disintegrated into a confusion of treachery and self-hatred, a similar story played out for us zoophiles in the western world. When attempts to get good people to organize together to try to make things better fall apart to the point where the backlash overwhelms and outsizes their efforts to be heard, the outcome is the same.

If you cite the same tired bad faith arguments based on ill-conceived pop philosophy, I will just point out the way that similar arguments have been used to oppress others, but the outcomes of oppressing people and silencing them and undermining their attempts to improve their relationship with society are always the same: they really don't stop existing, continue to exist; however, the dysfunctions in that community fester and get worse, and it becomes easier for bad actors in that community to take control of that community than it is for good people to try to pursue reform. Regardless of what arguments you make for defending it, beating people down and silencing them always has the same disgraceful outcomes. You don't really stop those people from existing. You only make it harder for the decent, more socially evolved people among them to be heard, and as a consequence, it is only a matter of time before the health problems in their own community bleed over and begin to affect the rest of society.

We zoophiles must not let ourselves get distracted by bad faith arguments, though. They are hollow. The only thing that can help us to build a positive rapport with society is to continuously work on building up that rapport, generation after generation. Starting discussions within families and among responsible groups of friends, generation after generation, will help build up that rapport.

There is not really a magic bullet that will make our problems go away. There is not any such thing as a magical syllogism that will cause all of the people in the world that do not understand us see the light. Even an unlikely court victory would not be as instantaneous of a remedy as some of us might believe.

I believe in social reform, but it never moves forward until the people that want to call for that reform have learned a love for the grind. It is hard for reformers to to learn the grind because it sounds boring. It sounds like the boring and unpleasant affair of doing our taxes. It sounds like the boring affair of clocking in at work and then clocking out for breaks and organizing our workspaces.

For someone like me that churns out this blog every week (sometimes even in a timely manner), it is tempting to wonder if anybody reads it or if anybody will ever care. It is tempting to wonder if it really matters to anyone if I always get one of these a week cranked out and published. It does not feel, when I publish these, like I am making some great wave of change. However, it is true that hardly anybody reads it or understands it, what matters to me is the exercise of continuously sticking to what I say that I am going to do and always delivering, even if I am most of a week late. I might be the only one it matters to, in the short-term, but it is a good habit for me to have, anyway. It is a good habit for me to have with my art, at work, and in my social life. It is a good habit for me to always stick to things, even if what I give to those things at any given time are only small, seemingly unremarkable efforts. Over time, having that as a habit will help me make sure that the big things that really matter eventually do happen.

Learning that understanding of he grind as a habit and a lifestyle is more important than reckless risk-taking or martyrdom, and the grind is also the hardest skill in the world for social reformers to learn. After all, by definition, we hate being obligated to do anything we don't really want to do. However, if we cannot learn to feel obligated to do the things we actually do want to do, then we will fail to go anywhere with them. Without discipline, we cannot really do very much at all that we would ever genuinely care about, even renegotiating the rules to better suit our beliefs, our experience, and our nature.

The reason why it never works to point out why bad faith arguments for hating you are bad faith arguments is that those arguments are made in bad faith, to begin with, and there is no quick way to put to rest a bad faith relationship with society or to build up a good faith relationship with society. No matter what, you have no choice except to build it up over the grinding generations.

This might make some people that are not up for that kind of work to want to just give up, but in the long-run, that does not just preserve the status quo. Giving up and running away will only lead to your situation becoming progressively worse and more dangerous, the longer you hide from it. You cannot really go and hide in some culturally dislocated and socially isolated place and wait for the problem to solve itself. It won't. The longer you hide, the bigger and more dangerous it will get.

If you are a zoophile or a zooey ally, then you have to do what I say to do to stop the endpoint from being a violent witch-hunt that could lead to people being literally hunted and killed by crazed and fearful mobs. Do what I say to do, or your situation could go from bad to profoundly dangerous.

Do a little bit every day, every week, and every month to help build up a more organized outreach to our society. Don't just do it randomly, but do it consciously. Do it deliberately. Organize. Plan. Coordinate new projects, and figure out how you are going to execute them and to fund them. Arrange meet-ups, and yes, attend meetings and research ways to make those meetings more effective. You have to pull a plan together and stick to it.

The alternative to doing what I say to do is not just failure to change the way things are, but the alterantive is really a certainty of your problems snowballing until they have become life-threateningly dangerous. Society never stays the same for very long. That truism cuts both ways.

I will keep on publishing this little blog as long as I have good health and access to an Internet connection, and I will continue other projects that I am building up slowly in the hope that they will mean something when I have gotten visibly older.

To those that read these every week, thank you for listening to what I have to say.


Sigma
  • Like
Reactions: Sirius
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

Hanging out with a friend, particularly someone that I can relate to about my zooey history, is how I prefer to spend a day.

When I was a young zoo, I was one of, I suspect, many of us that have excellent chemistry with animals and yet are baffled endlessly by human beings. However, I eventually realized that my problem was that I was assuming, incorrectly, that human beings would work differently from animals. They really do not.

A few translation steps are necessary. For instance, humans do have language, but we really use our language in the same way that an animal uses their body: when we want to puff ourselves up, we tend to use language that makes us appear to be more authoritative or stronger. Just like with an animal, this is really a symptom of anxiety more often that it is really a symptom of aggression, and this kind of display is more of a deterrent. Besides that, I think that there are many other ways that the way we use our words can, in effect, resemble the body language of an animal. When I say that humans an animals are really a lot alike, I feel that this becomes even more obviously true when one takes a closer look at how we actually use our unique adaptations.

I have really ended up being an almost incredibly social sort of person, then. I tremendously enjoyed the company of a friend that was in town for a while, and this has turned out to be a busy weekend. With all of the political instability that has been going on around us, I think that having the companionship of a like-minded friend can help me remember that there is still a world out there outside of these silly news feeds.


Socially,
Sigma
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

Happy belated New Year!

Belated because I just needed a week off, I guess. I kept on meaning to get one out, but I just kept kicking the can down the road. Instead of backdating, I am going to just officially move the blog back to Saturday, so in the future, I will have an extra day to spend getting out a late entry.

Everybody says that they had a miserable 2020, but frankly, I did not have a bad year. Right before the pandemic, I landed a job that has been tremendously good for me on many different levels. I am in the best physical condition of my life. I am in good health. I have money in the bank. My local zoophile community had some great meet-ups. I am doing great!

I look upon COVID-19 in about the same way that I look upon the Black Death. Sure, the Black Death wiped out one-third of the entire population of Europe, but it woke Europe up to reality. It was a splash of cold water in the face of a continent that had spent one thousand years wallowing in self-pity, and they finally started investing in the sciences again. They finally started working to try to make their lives better.

I love natural disasters. I have always loved natural disasters. Natural disasters always act as a sort of wake-up call to us that we really need each other, and we need to be able to depend on each other. Natural disasters tell us that we need to be able to follow simple instructions in order to make ourselves more safe. Natural disasters force us to confront reality. Natural disasters make us more aware that we cannot really survive if we do not have a functioning civilization.

Oh, politics, well, I kind of said something was up with that in 2009. Ochlocracy was what the people wanted, and ochlocracy was what the people got. They will get tired of it, eventually, but until then, worrying about it will just raise my blood-pressure. I have a family history of heart trouble, so I think that I will pass on keeping my blood-pressure in outer space.

I think that the worst is yet to come with this pandemic, and that is going to be partly because of people's excessive investment in the vaccine. The virus has spread too far, and it's going to mutate faster than Pfizer can keep up. It's going to end up like influenza: no matter how many vaccines we make for it, it's just going mutate again, and it is virtually impossible to be prepared for every possible variation. If you intend to "shelter in place" until the disease has been wiped out, then I will see you in half a century, dude.

For surviving this pandemic, I think that we ought to consider using a similar strategy to what the polyamorous community has used for fending off HIV: they keep a small, select circle of friends that they trust to follow rules about safe behavior outside the group. People in the poly community end up having lower STI rates because of this fact. The zooey community could use a similar strategy to the poly community for fighting off COVID-19: by developing a tight-knit local community based on a common identity and trust, us zoophiles could actually insulate ourselves against danger while also being more social with each other than ever. Even if one particular group of zoos were to get the virus, all of them would know it, and all of them would know to get themselves tested and thereby reduce their chances of spreading it to people they have to work with as part of their jobs.

I still believe that there is nothing more valuable for zoos than having local friends that they can talk to openly about their feelings. It would help draw us zoophiles away from bad social media platforms that tend to fuel ochlocracy, and it would give us people in our lives that we can depend on, if nothing else just for company.

Anyhow, my New Years resolution, for this blog, is to start trying to get my entries out by at least the end of the weekend.


See you next entry!
Sigma
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

If you are a zoophile and also a furry, then I suspect that some of you might want to think about creating a zoosona.

A zoosona is a parallel identity that you can use for finding online communities, especially online furry communities, that tend to be accepting toward zoophiles.

I am one of those rare zoophiles for whom my scalesona (scaly animal-themed fursona) and my zoosona are the same identity, and as a matter of fact, I have been using essentially the same scalesona ever since the late 1990's, barring a name and color change. I have always been notorious for being willing to roleplay just about any fantasy, not really because I liked it for my own sake but because I liked making others happy, and I always had this weird habit of talking philosophy in the middle of highly kinky roleplay for no apparent reason whatsoever. The base personality has always been amazingly consistent, no matter how much else about me has changed.

I have used other scalesonas, feathersonas, and other types of fursonas since that time, but my motives for adopting them were always misguided ones: because I was trying to be something I was not in those cases, I could never really get into character.

I guess that what led to me believing, falsely, that I could have many different personalities was the fact that Sigma really did seem to be a sort of fully developed "alter-ego" that was very different from my "human" self. I had guessed that if I could play online as Sigma and play IRL as someone else, then I could play as any other made-up character just as authentically as I could play as Sigma.

Boy, was I wrong! My "human" self was the one that was really contrived. I was closeted as gay and gender non-binary. I was closeted as zoo. I was closeted as being doubtful of religion, which it turned out I correctly believed would result in violence if my family found out (yes, actual domestic violence). Saying anything that I actually believed, in the time and place where I lived, was actually dangerous.

As Sigma, I could just be myself. That is what was weird. I was in a situation, in life, where the only time I could really be my real self was when I was pretending that I was a magical, scaly, chimerical monster on the Internet. Weirdly, Sigma was not a made-up person at all, but Sigma was my real personality. Sie was the only genuine personality that I could ever have. It might have been ridiculous, but it was authentic and ridiculous.

I really tried to get made-up characters to work out, but all of them eventually died because they were fake. I tried to reinvent myself a few times to try to make a new and better me, but I can never change who I am. Those other characters were just not good people because they were not real.

For us zoophiles within the fandom, I think that some of us can find that it's all to do over again. With the late anti-zoophile moral crusade within the fandom, which is slowly petering out but still going on, many of us have to live the same kind of lie that originally made it necessary to create our fursonas, in the first place. Sometimes, we get led to believe that we fit in somewhere, but we find out only later that, in those places, everyone accepts a weird roleplay fetish but does not really accept real personal differences very well, except for ones that could not really stop anybody today from running for president. For many of us zoophiles, that can be shocking and upsetting. It's hard for us to come out because we are often afraid that people we have come to like will betray us.

A zoosona is nothing in the world except a fursona, owned by a zoophile, that has never ever made a secret of being a zoophile IRL, not just as a roleplay fetish. It might be harder to find a place in furry where your zoosona fits in, but give it time. Furry is a bigger and more diverse place than most furries think it is. Furries might constitute a small minority of the human population, but there are billions of people in this world. That's still a lot of furries.

My zoosona is still just my regular scalesona, and that might also be true for many other zoophiles in the fandom. I have also known zoophiles that have had to create zoosonas later on, in their furry lives, because they really preferred not to know if some of their friends, deep down, were really hypocritical, toxic thugs because it would have broken their hearts.

I understand too well why some of us need to go through the motions of creating a new body for a soul that has become homeless, and it's okay.


Your devoted if constantly tardy zooey blogger,
Sigma
  • Like
Reactions: beetlenest
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

It was a nice weekend. A friend happened to be stopping through, and we spent the weekend just sort of hanging out.

I usually do not watch a whole lot of television, but the show we binged on was right up my ally. It was Midnight Gospel. I understood that show so well, and the way it was done was cool and trippy.

I am not sure if it was meant this way, but what I got from the show was the thought, "If it were literally the end of the world, and if I could only have one brief conversation that would be broadcast out into space, then what would I want that conversation to be about?"

Well, it's hard to learn how to be an individual person again after having been grafted onto somebody else's life for so long, and after suddenly finding ourselves alone, I think we have a reason for not always moving on right away. Many of us have been just a part of somebody else's life for so long, we've forgotten what it's like to be ourselves. When somebody new asks us, essentially, "Who are you?" then we have to just admit, "I honestly don't know." Some of us spend the last years of someone else's life saying that we believe things we are not sure we believe, and we believed those things for someone else in order to try to play the role we were supposed to play in their story.

I think that reestablishing our own independent identities is a part of how we prepare for becoming a part of someone else's life. I think we instinctively want to make sure that they know what they are really in for. In a way, I think that that is related to a sense of honesty.

I am sure there must be a lot of other stuff going on in those sorts of situations, but I felt that discussing it from the standpoint of identity formation was, I think, worth discussing.

Anyhow, it's been a good but long weekend, so I am going to rest and prepare for a long day's work.


Good night,
Sigma
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

I have had to think heavily on whether or not I wanted to continue reaching out to furries. I periodically go through a time when I just don't feel very much attachment to the furry fandom at all, and in a way, I barely ever have. I am not really sure I belong among furries for many reasons.

I feel more like a sci-fi and fantasy fan that happens to be a zoophile. I grew up on sci-fi and fantasy, having kept my nose buried in books to my tippy-toes from when I was a child. I always identified strongly with thinking animals, fantastical or otherwise, and they were always the non-anthro variety and not anthro animals at all. They were dragons, unicorns, dolphins, whales, wolves, and other sorts of creatures, and they spoke to something deep and instinctive in me. Even sentient but mute animals like Jane Yolen's or Anne McCaffrey's dragons were inspiring to me because I could relate to the feeling that I sometimes thought in ways that I did not even have a means of sharing with or adequately describing to other humans.

The rabbits of Watership Down had thoughts that were more like mine than any human character in any series. My life has been a lot like theirs, even though I have gone about it in a solitary sort of way: the home I used to have was being destroyed by terminal capitalism, and I just had to get out of there before it was too late. I was a bitter little goth like Fiver. My favorite character was really Kehaar because I am attracted to the "dirty old sailor" personality type.

In MRS. Frisby and the Rats of Nimh and the subsequent novels, I identified with Racso, for some reason. I guess that the fact that he was so much of a dork with so much left to learn but also clearly had good intentions made me like him more, as a person, than anyone else in the story. I really would have liked him less if he had not been such a dork.

The dolphins of Startide Rising were meaningful to me because they were not really billed as being more advanced than humans or even equals of humans, but they were billed as being truly amazing pilots. They were crazy. They were sleazy. They were prone to slipping into primal speak. They were troublesome. They were good pilots, and they loved what they did. They were also controversial in the intergalactic community because it was unheard of for a newly uplifted, seriously problematic species to be given so much responsibility, but they were good at what they did. When other alien races went up against them with the assumption that they were broken just because they were different, they won because they were good at what they did.

And yes, Skandranon was a hunk, and I liked to imagine that I was Zhaneel.

I think that the fact that I was attracted to these characters might have been related to the fact that I grew up to be a zoophile, but deep down, what really set my heart on fire was science fiction and fantasy.

Science fiction particularly both gives me a sense of hope for the human race and also many elements of warning about how we could also create futuristic dystopias. It fills me with a sense that the future is a very big place, and that comes with a large amount of responsibility. Whatever we create, out there, our descendants are going to have to live in it.

I just don't get that sense of hope from most of the furry fandom. I see sleazy sex, disgraceful bullying, and a general lack of very much dignity or self-respect. For several months, now, I have pondered whether or not I should distance myself from furries because I find so many furries to be the most offensive human beings I have ever met in my entire life. Some of them are just not good people.

However, I am not the only person in the furry fandom that could be described as "a sci-fi nerd that happens to be a zoophile." I think am really just one of thousands. We are not the whole furry fandom or even the majority, but we are nevertheless a valid part of the furry fandom. We have always been there.

Nevertheless, I still do not feel especially invested in the furry fandom. I somewhat identify with some themes within the furry fandom, but I just cannot really get behind it wholeheartedly, at least not for right now. The furry fandom has a lot of growing up left to do before I will really want to invest very much of my heart in it.

For right now, I can acknowledge that I technically qualify as one of the furry fandom's minority groups, but I am also technically a "Southerner." There are many good things in the furry fandom, but there are also many good things in the South. Should I therefore go around pretending that neither the furry fandom nor the South also have committed well more than their fair share of sins? Should I pretend that the cruelty and bigotry and corruption and hypocrisy are not there, just because I can also find a saving grace?

I might not be ready to give up on furries, but they have a long way to go before I can really feel proud of them. Both the furry fandom and the American South have almost exactly the same problem in one important respect, which is long history of unreasoning and self-defeating contempt, discrimination, and violence toward their largest, oldest, and most culturally important minorities.

Well, people of color are not leaving the South.

Zoophiles are not leaving furry.


Voting remain,
Sigma
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

I love people that disagree with me. I love them a lot! I think the world needs more people that disagree with me about at least one thing.

One thing I hate is people that agree with me...superficially, at least.

This needs some explaining.

Actions speak louder than words, at least to those of us that have rich and diverse life experience behind us.

One of the worse experiences that I had, with people, was actually among people that shared my views, on most subjects, but one day, I came under fire from the same people for being a zoophile. Instead of running away, though, or engaging in my usual behavior of flirting with extremism to the point of getting myself banned, I carefully stayed well within the bounds of civility, and I spent a while watching how these people behaved toward others. In the long-run, I realized that it was not just me they acted this way toward, but in the end, they were just toxic people that had created a system of cancerous group-think based on a particular ideology.

This does not mean that that type of experience is one that I have only ever had with people that believe in the same ideas as I. On the contrary, there was a time when I tended to conflate "believes in the same ideas that I do" with "living based on the same values that I do," and my thinking, then, was really sort of black-and-white, compared with where my thinking is now.

I think that it is easier to understand how true the saying that "actions speak louder than words" really is if you have had rich and diverse life experience. I do not mean to say that you have to be a gray-muzzle to understand that this saying has truth in it, but what I am trying to say is that the real depth of truth in it eventually becomes more blindingly obvious based on experience.

This does not mean that I always have nice, agreeable conversations with people that I disagree with. In fact, some of my best friends are people that I have called belligerent wazzocks, blind fools, and stubborn pillocks. I love these people because, while I get into heated arguments with them, they are people that really practice, in their actions, similar values to the ones that I try to live by. At heart, I trust them.

Deep down, I do need people to agree with me, but what I need them to agree about is based on how they behave toward other people in their lives. The values that I really need to agree with people about are really old-fashioned values like kindness, generosity, honesty, loyalty, laughter, and just a little bit of magic. Do you see what I did, there? Those central elements of harmony need to be demonstrated, not just preached about.

Everything else, though, is just interesting conversation.

As zoophiles, we have a need to understand this wisdom more than anybody else in the world because we zoophiles constitute the most ideologically diverse group of people in the world that also share a common bond. When we let ideological differences divide us, then we are putting pettiness first and the elements of harmony last. You can't just preach the elements of harmony, but you have to demonstrate them. If you do learn to demonstrate them every day, then I promise that every difference of opinion that you ever have, no matter how vehemently you believe in those opinions, will be conversations that you will ultimately be grateful to have had with your friends.


Hopeful of many conversations yet to come,
Sigma
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and confused others,

I spent yesterday with a zooey friend of mine, and he told me a lot about what was going on in the zooey community back in the Zoo's Destiny days.

In the midst of this conversation, I developed a sort of theory...I always have a theory. I don't know how often those theories mean anything to anybody. I don't really have any illusion that I am the world's expert on everything, but nature decided to tack this goofy thinking-machine onto what would otherwise be a perfectly good macaque. I don't really think it makes me inherently better than a macaque, but like a macaque, I like to play with just about anything that does interesting and wacky things, including this gray matter tumor that all humans are born with that they hilariously believe makes them the most superior of all superior species. I think that this particular theory might be reasonably sound, though.

I think that the early beginnings of any community, which seeks to question the moral authenticity of any long-standing taboo, can only really emerge in a cultural milieu where almost everything is being questioned. I think that, in just about every lifetime, people just get tired of dealing with the ongoing maladies of a moral system that everyone knows is buggy, so they try throwing everything up into the air for a while, even though they know that they are going to have to deal with all kinds of weird consequences later. This gives them a chance to sort out existing bugs, but they also know in their guts that this process is also going to give birth to new programs that are going to need to be debugged later.

Obviously, I am talking about "human culture" as if it were software on a computer: it's a clunky and flawed analogy, but it's the best clunky and flawed analogy my gray matter tumor can come up with, which is fine if the reader understands that even a good analogy needs a certain amount of translation.

It would not be completely accurate to say that this entire process is a fully deterministic cycle. The cyclic generational change theory is really based on Austrian School business cycle (ASBC) theory, but pure ASBC theory is not really more useful than palmistry or astrology for giving us any amount of useful information. The problem with ASBC is that it negates the natural reactions of the state within its proposed cycle. It is as much human nature, for us to want the state to make use of large concentrations of wealth for "great society" types of projects, as it is for business owners to make large investments, and trying to force the state to play-act as if it did not really exist is really not as natural as letting the state have a natural reaction to a natural combination of problems and opportunities. In other words, ASBC theory would work just fine if ASBC theory accepted the natural role of the state in the economy, and trying to create a fictional bubble world where it is not there is as self-defeating as fucking Hell, which is why very few respected economists really accept it as unimpeachable gospel.

However, if you are thinking that I completely reject ASBC, then I just tricked you by being more literate than thou: actually, Austrian School economics is a part of the hybrid economic school of thought that we got Keynesian and the emergent New Keynesian economic theories from. Knut Wicksell's original idea, which was absolute genius, involved adopting several elements from Leon Walras, David Ricardo, and Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, where Bawerk was from the Austrian school. Although ASBC theory was a post-Bawerk idea that was developed by Mises, Mises himself could not have developed ASBC theory without borrowing from Bawerk's work.

Nevertheless, ASBC theory makes the same mistake as many conservationists.

I think that everybody what wants to try to understand why Austrian School theories suffer from a fatal flaw should immediately purchase or borrow the book Out of Eden: An Odyssey of Ecological Invasion, by Alan Burdick. Read it now. Do it. You must. You cannot possibly understand why Austrian School theory is not accepted as an unimpeachable gospel, by any genuinely respected mainstream economist today, unless you read that book right now.

Something that Burdick tells us about conservation is something that should have been very obvious but really was not obvious to many people due to human-exceptionalist thinking: the human world and the natural world are not separate places. If you have trees growing in your city with the same density as a natural forest, regardless of whether or not they were planted on purpose, then you are still living in a forest, and you still have to think of your city as a forest. You cannot avoid having the same ecological concerns and wildlife management issues as a forest, even though that forest happens to be in the same geographic area as your city. Also, you need to understand that you, as a human, are still a part of your natural world, even within the context of the city where you live. Wildlife does not stop existing just because you draw a cute little line on a map that says, "this is a CITY, and this is NATURE." That line is FICTION. It is made-up. It is a conceptual tool that your gray matter tumor uses for making important decisions, but it is still FICTION.

The state is a natural part of the economy, and if the state is staffed by people that are elected by a voting populace, then the socially transmitted politics of the people are also a natural part of the economy. Whether you like it or not, it is all interwoven because the distinctions we draw between them are really artificial.

Therefore, I am going to treat the Strauss-Howe theory of generational change the same way that I would treat the ASBC theory we got from Mises: I am stealing the parts of it that are worth something and using them for purposes that their creators might not entirely agree with.

As a matter of fact, generational change actually does go in a cycle, but if you use the gestalt thinking that I would propose, then it is easy to decipher how that cycle only really takes place because of absolutely rational decisions that are made by various actors in it at various times. In other words, just because there is effectively a sort of cycle, that does not mean that you should just sit back and do nothing. The cycle happens because of how you naturally react to present conditions.

However, a part of that cycle includes the fact that you, the reader, are NOT JUST receiving this idea from me but at a point in your life where you are willing to contemplate that idea as something that could be useful to you, rather than the equivalent of some astrology or palmistry that you might hear from some random hyperlogic kook.

I think that, as a matter of fact, our society actually is starting to approach upon a debugging phase, and there is a lot of work that really needs to be done. We zoophiles are not the only group of people, in society, that are getting stressed out by the bugs that we currently have in the system. Police officers are getting stressed out because the same people they are genuinely trying to help make better lives for are turning against them in a popinjay anti-police moral crusade, and that moral crusade is just unhinged as the anti-zoophile moral crusade. The antifa ideology was based on proactively criticizing domestic terrorism, but people that follow the ideology are getting called terrorists for challenging terrorism. Black Lives Matter was created chiefly to criticize racism, but they are getting called racists for criticizing racism. Respected sexologists like Ray Blanchard are coming under attack by the same LGBT community that they have been trying to help and to understand. For many well-meaning groups of people, the social, economic, legal, and moral system we have, rather than being a truly unimpeachable model for how society ought to be governed for the rest of eternity, is really creating more problems than it solves.

However, what happened to us zoophiles, the last time, was that there was no debugging to be done on us. Instead, we were a new program that sprouted out of the last debugging process. Before the Sexual Revolution, nobody actually thought it could ever be normal, in any quarter of society, to regard an alternative sexuality as something besides "a sad statement of how far society has sunk." Before the Sexual Revolution, homosexuality was almost universally in the "societal ills" category, along with alcoholism, prostitution, and crime, even among most gay people: yes, even gay people, in the early 20th Century, thought of their sexuality in the same way that a cocaine addict would think about snorting cocaine, so even though they knew they could not get away from the craving, they genuinely hated this about themselves and even spoke out loudly against it as a means of virtue-signaling. The gay community already existed, though. They had existed for an entire lifetime.

Not very many people know it, but the organized homosexual movement actually started at the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago, Illinois, which was attended by a young Ashkenazi Jewish-German scholar named Magnus Hirschfeld. Magnus Hirschfeld happened to be gay. Magnus Hirschfeld was struck by the similarities between gay life in Berlin and gay life in Chicago, and because of these similarities, it struck him that homosexuality might not be a learned behavior at all but just might be a natural in-born part of the human condition. In the wake of this realization, Magnus Hirschfeld began to stir up interest among the gay community in Berlin, and this resulted in a small movement that prospered for a while under the Weimar Republic.

Well, I will admit the fact that Oscar Wilde was still alive at the time, and during 1893, the Decadent Movement in western Europe was really in full-swing. This was not in itself an organized homosexual movement: I still think that Magnus Hirschfeld was the one that established a sense of international organization and cooperation.

In any case, the international gay community had previously not really existed, as a systematically organized group of people, and because of this, the system they created was in the "early testing stages," which means that it was slow, buggy, and just as likely to destroy your precious equipment in a puff of smoke and screaming of fans as it was to revolutionize your workflow. In other words, early efforts to implement the program were prone to massive failures. The Society for Human Rights that was chartered by Henry Gerber blew up because of Gerber's and others' attempts to push out bisexual men, and there is evidence that the gay men at the time did not really accept yet that they were not really allowed to do strange things around normie children that were destined to be misinterpreted. It was just as serious and humiliating of a blow-up as the one surrounding Zoo's Destiny.

In the 1950's, though, the gay community got serious about starting a debug process, which involved them realizing the need to create better standards for communicating effectively with society. They were debating about ways that they could avoid running into the same problems that they did during their own equivalent of the Zoo's Destiny blow-up.

Nevertheless, the movement among gay people was a part of a more widespread social movement. They were not living in a vacuum. Those gay men were living in a society where a lot of hand-wringing was being done, in every quarter of western society, about the crimes of Nazi Germany and rise of authoritarian and violent Stalinist communism. People everywhere were going through a phase where they were starting to realize that they really did need to put their entire society through a comprehensive debugging process.

Now, if you think that the society around you, right now, at the end of 2020--with a pandemic still going on, with the followers of a would-be American dictator starting to form up into what could very easily turn into a violent separatist movement, with the protesters against the same dictator breaking the windows, of people's already severely suffering family-owned businesses, like common thugs, with Europe at the brink of another ridiculous war--is sailing along smoothly except for the little problems of us perverts, then please be my guest: go ahead, and walk through life believing that you are in touch with reality. You are going to walk over a cliff, and I genuinely do not want to stop you from doing so.

Really, I think that most reasonable people realize that us zoophiles are not the only people in the world, right now, that are being struck with the realization that we need to reassess what we have been doing.

The movement that zoophiles were trying to create, back in the alt.sex.bestiality days and in the shadowy world that existed before, was not genuinely a bad idea, but like the early gay rights movement, it was in the early stages of development. It was one of the mutant offspring of the Sexual Revolution, just like the gay rights movement was one of the mutant offspring of the Decadent Movement. Our earliest efforts blew up in our faces in humiliating wreckage, just like Henry Gerber's Society for Human Rights blew up in his face in humiliating wreckage. The ill-fated community surrounding Zoo's Destiny involved many serious judgment errors. The movement was so raw, though, that nobody that was involved in it really knew what they were doing.

Be realistic: those pioneers could not have realized how much injustice there is in society, toward zoophiles, unless they had been careless and reckless enough to get into trouble, in the first place. The ones who were really decent human beings, at heart, though, are still around. They have grown a lot wiser with age, and many of them are generously showing a willingness to share their hard-won wisdom with us through stories, music, and the benefit of their society. Some of them seem to feel that these early failures were inherently their own fault, but these early failures were just as unavoidable as the early failures that led to Henry Gerber's tragic story. The movement was just too raw, at the time, to attract anybody except people that were naturally reckless and rebellious. They did not have a past generation of elders. The original movement blew up for the same reasons why the society in Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, blew up. It was a youth-driven counter-culture that poited into existence out of the choppy wake of the Sexual Revolution. No matter how gifted some of them were, they were young, and they did not have a documented history to guide them.

As the rest of society prepares to enter into a debugging process, there will be an opportunity for us zoophiles to become a part of that process, but we must not make the childish assumption that this is a "deterministic" process that is outside the realm of our own control. Our elders and our leadership need to take adult responsibility for the process to happen. It is natural for them to do so because they are not really the irresponsible heartless punks that wider society thinks they are. If they had been, then they would have moved on to other exploitative psychotic behaviors a long time ago. If they had really been driven by psychoticism, then would have moved on to other sick behaviors like robbing people's private property and portraying themselves as heroic conservationists while raking in profits from the sale of stolen property. Instead, they have grown as people since their early days, but their zoophilia turned out to be something that they could not really just grow out of or walk away from. Conscious, rational, intelligent, informed decision-making and organizing might sound like interference with the natural process, but it is really a natural part of the process. It is natural for us to do that which is rational because being rational is a part of what we naturally are. Doing the rational thing is as natural to us as taking a shit. The gray matter tumor in your brain that distinguishes you from a macaque is a natural adaptation of an animal, and you have as much right to use that tumor to take adult responsibility as you have to use your anus for taking a dump. An opportunity to be a part of a process of social change is beginning to emerge, and that is a noble and beautiful process.

Human reason is a part of nature, not separate from nature, and to use it as proficiently as we can is the most natural thing in the world for us to do. It really does not make you as different from a macaque as most people think it does, but that's okay: macaques are cute. I can handle being closely related to a macaque.


With special thanks to someone who has become a very dear friend,
Sigma
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

I tend to seem very hostile toward rural areas.

However, I am really a lot more hostile toward agrarian romanticism. I think that the myth that "country life" is always "peaceful" or "communal" is really a dangerous one. Often, rural areas can have many cultural problems that you would usually assume are restricted to the inner city. For example, some of them have serious drug problems.

If a town has not really grown in the past half a century and has a declining population, that does not always mean that that town is bad, but you should also consider asking why. Sometimes, the reason why that town is shrinking is that everybody with any brains is getting out of there. That town might have become culturally toxic. The politics may have become irreversibly corrupt, and it is impossible for any honest person to break through the political cartel that keeps the crooks in power. Sometimes, there are very good reasons why people do not want to live somewhere. Corruption is often the reason why, and you would be wasting your time by trying to fight against that kind of snake-pit. The rest of the country is better off just leaving those places to die.

Furthermore, cities are not always these horrible noisy places filled with stores and cars and people screaming at each other. In fact, there are many medium-sized cities that have very quiet atmospheres, and this is related to why those cities are growing: people like the quiet atmosphere, and that makes them want to move there. Also, many of those cities have land that is zoned as "agricultural," and because of that, there is such a thing as cities that have farmland in them or near them.

Somebody might point out counter-examples to both of those scenarios, and they would be right: however, this does not make it any less dangerous for people to assume that they can solve all of their problems by running away to the country. Without actually doing substantial research on an area and its history, I would not advise it.

A fellow zoophile warned me that many zoophiles might resent hearing that their dreams of a rural getaway, surrounded by animal friends, could really backfire on them, but I am not really trying to tell anybody that those dreams can never happen at all. Instead, I would actually have people consider their options more carefully than just looking at population density. Population density is not everything.

I would also suggest considering an exurban area over a self-contained rural area. Exurban areas can have a high proportion of educated professionals that work in high-tech jobs in the city, sometimes being lucky enough to be able to telecommute most of the time. However, exurban areas can also have very inexpensive land and long distances between housing units, and many of the people in these areas may own horses or goats.

People are not wrong or bad for not wanting to live the way that I would live, but what I actually do consider to be harmful is romanticizing certain types of areas. I see agrarian romanticism as particularly toxic. There is no substitute for making rational choices that keep you close to where you can get good jobs and send your offspring to safe schools.

Those that make a habit, of putting romantic notions about things first and their practical survival last, usually grow up to be jaded and bitter, even cynical. Trying to start a farm without adequate preparation leads to people putting their animals to death just because they cannot afford expensive veterinary bills. Most of the time, those were animals that could have been saved. Paying the bills must always come first. Often, small towns fail because people drive out to them and never try to invest in the health of those small towns. They want easy lives of detachment, and because of that, the world around them falls apart.

I am not hostile toward agrarian romanticism because of the agrarian aspect of it. I am hostile toward agrarian romanticism because it is romanticism. The reality is not as wholesome or simple or cut-and-dried as the romantic portrait.


Just some thoughts for my fellow zoos,
Sigma
Dear zoos, zooey allies, and interested others,

For the most part, I have avoided making too fine of a point of my political inclinations in this blog, but I really have a strong need to discuss the point. Now that the past election is behind us, I really need strongly to make a fine point of this.

We zoophiles must not be fooled by the fact that the conservative evangelicals, which make up a powerful part of the GOP base, have not noticed us yet as a distinct group. Currently, they do not see any difference between us and gay people, so when they attack gay people, they are implying us, even if they do not specifically single us out. We are already getting attacked by them, and many of us are still too obtuse to realize that their homophobic rage also includes rage against ourselves. They are not our friends. They will never be our friends.

Their attacks against women's right to choose are also an implied attack on us.

You must learn to understand conservative evangelicals: to them, all non-reproductive sex is evil. They really do not care as much as they pretend they do about "unborn children." That is their choice rhetoric for promoting the message, but what they really mean to do, by abortion bans and restrictions, is to use children as a proxy for punishing women who would dare to have sex without the intention of reproduction.

Oh, I realize that they can be depraved and foul in their indigenous sexual inclinations, but then they go pray for forgiveness in their pews while their pastors assure them, "at least you are not as damned as a homosexual." They affirm in their minds, every Sunday and sometimes also every Wednesday that their sexuality, while it is foul and unpardonable, is not as foul and unpardonable as DEVIANCY! They have thereby created a dysfunctional MAP-infested jungle...because, for some reason, MAPs (the kind that violently abuse toddlers so badly they grow up to have split personalities, not the twenty-somethings that date seventeen-year-olds) seem to be attracted to toxic sex-negative religious sects and subcultures like flies to shit. I suspect that my brother's drug problems and borderline personality disorder might be related to him finding that out the hard way.

I have a riddle for you: what kinds of people are attracted to an agrarian subculture where fathers are encouraged to bring out their 4-12 year old sons to secluded wilderness areas, far away from any cell phone signal or any ears that would hear them scream? If their fathers allowed their little sons to roam free and unattended while they drank themselves insane around the partly skinned corpse of a deer, then what kinds of people would love to be there?

Like flies to shit.

Those people are not strangers to me. I don't get this stuff from a television screen or off of social media I don't even use. I grew up around them, and while they did not think I was paying attention, I heard everything those wackjobs said and saw everything they did. They thought I was crazy because I said I would rather be a dragon on a different planet. That's a whopper. My weirdness was a protest against reality, not confusion about what actually constituted reality. Those goons actually took themselves seriously, which was terrifying. They didn't even realize that their model for society was unsustainable, and that town, even now, has a shrinking population in spite of an above-average fertility-rate because everybody with any brains is getting out of there. They thought their failed culture, which clearly had no future, was the epitome of reality. They had drive-by shootings in a town of less than one thousand people, and they still thought that their model for survival was not only working but was the only you could ever want to live if you were in touch with reality. Oh, my GOD! Telepathic space dragons literally made more sense than their shit mode of existence!

I remember telling my father, as we sat on the tail-gate of his pick-up truck, that I would rather be the deer than the hunter. I said that the deer dies beautiful and innocent of wrongdoing. The hunter might live longer but dies a murderer and therefore with a less beautiful soul. I said I believed that the deer was more fortunate, and I envied that creature's peaceful existence. I may not have been as eloquent, then, as I am now, but in the stilted and simple language of a kid, I said I wished I were the deer instead. He never took me out again. I will tell you why. Honest people are not welcome in that culture, and I had shown that I was not only honest but that I was prepared to die for that honesty. I could have never belonged in a subculture of hypocrites and liars.

And they did a lot of cocaine. BC Powders are popular in the South, and I'll tell you why. It's an easy way to pass off Colombian snow as something harmless. Those sick child-rapists that hoard them will empty the little packets out, and they will put their best buddy's "old Indian folk remedy" in. I've watched them doing it in while leaning back in the bench-seats of their pick-up trucks with one paper plate in their laps and another paper plate bent into a makeshift funnel. They don't acknowledge that it's cocaine. They just get high off it while calling it folk medicine, "better than that stuff you buy at the store." And then they go to church and pray the next day. They are so divorced from reality that they make up myths and fairy-tales to explain away their own fucked-up behavior.

I know all too well how fucked-up the right-wing are. They are evil, and you would be a fool to trust them.

The failure of their way of life did not cure them of their insanity, either, but they have just gotten even more daffy. Their offspring are so belligerently and absolutely unabashedly and smilingly evil that they have taken to shooting up churches, now. I knew people like Dylann Roof were inevitable because I saw the dysfunctional shit culture that created him and others like him. People thought he was a one-off and that we could put that kind of thinking behind us, but Robert Gregory Bowers wanted to try to top him for accomplishment in being as evil as humanly possible. They have created an American subculture of violent thuggery. I saw the dying shit culture they came from, and there is a long way left to go down.

When those people are out there spouting hateful rhetoric against gay people and fawning over Putin's homophobic policies, they are not ignoring you: they just do not distinguish those people from you. They want to bring back the sodomy laws times ten, and they want you to hang from the same rope as the queers. The religious right are thugs, and they are actually getting crazier and more violent. You cannot really use the queers as a human shield against them: they are also coming after you, whether you have the intelligence to perceive that or not.

The only reason why the left even acknowledges your existence as a distinct group is that they don't have very many other groups of non-aggressive people, right now, they see themselves as justified in treating like shit. It doesn't mean they hate you more: they just hate you more specifically. There is a difference. Furthermore, the acknowledgement that we are a distinct and unique group of people, rather than an indistinct morass of random mindless perversity, is actually a starting point for discussion: at minimum, the left is capable of acknowledging that, just because we have sex with our animals, that doesn't mean that we are likely to do other perverted acts.

Here is a point I want you to think about: the left has recognized that we have drawn a line. They have recognized that we are willing to limit ourselves to non-aggressive sexual acts with animals. They have recognized that we do not believe this justifies us going out tomorrow to abduct someone's child. They just disagree with the fact that that is where we have planted our flag. Their very acknowledgement that we are a unique group of people shows that they are listening to us and that trying to talk with them has had some effect. We might even win them over, someday, but we just aren't there, yet.

The sort of culture that created Dylann Roof and Robert Gregory Bowers does not talk about zoophilia because they believe that both you AND homosexuals are just an indistinct morass of unceasing predatory perversity that has no limits at all on what evil and disgusting behaviors you are willing to try, and they think that BOTH of you have the ultimate goal of having small children tied-up and gagged in your basements. Their point-of-view is that BOTH of you are merely motivated by a Satanic urge to make a perverted mockery out of God's creation, and this literally makes them want to bash you in the face. They think that you and homosexuals and transgender people are the same thing: they will only ever see you as "sexual psychopaths" for as long as you live. They will never see you as a person.

There is only but so long you could use other minority groups as a human shield against those sorts of lunatics, and in the long-run, the people that you THINK are letting you do so are a thousand times more dangerous to you.

As imperfect as the left is, the very fact that they acknowledge your uniqueness is a starting point for discussion. The fact that they don't really think that you are a randomly motivated Hellion is a starting point, even if they otherwise hate you. They understand the basic point that you are not merely driven by a general urge to befoul the planet by spreading filth. That's a big deal. Acknowledgement of our unique existence, by itself, is a victory.

In the short-term, that acknowledgement takes away our ability to use other minority groups as human shields, but tough shit, motherfucker. I am not evil enough or heartless enough to use other minority groups as human shields, and besides that, I intend to live long enough that I would eventually see how self-defeating that outlook really is.

It is necessary for our long-term survival to engage with the left and to try to make peace with them. They have already gone as far as to acknowledge that our ONLY real sexual deviance we necessarily have is being attracted to animals. It's crumbs, but it's nourishing crumbs. It's something we can build on.

I know they are not perfect. Believe me! I know!

The "woke" culture worries me. It's not just authoritarian but also self-defeating to its own purposes.

Unfortunately, the "woke" mindset is ultimately going to undermine women's rights by following an authoritarian, rather than liberation-minded, policy. Women's access to abortion is currently an unguarded flank for the left, which they have left unguarded based on their misguided attempts to broaden the definition of "rape" to anything besides voluntary castration and penectomy. They have reinvented Puritanism and falsely renamed it as "empowerment," and while they waste time on that misguided crusade, to make sure that all straight men are tried, convicted, and punished for being straight before they are even old enough to get an erection, they are losing ground fast insofar as their reproductive liberties, which constitutes a cornerstone of women's liberation. They are going to dig themselves so deep that I fear that, by the time feminists have turned back to liberation as the focus of their struggle, they are going to have so many complex restrictions and obstructions to their rights, at the state level, that they are going to have to expend resources busing people over state lines to get them to clinics. They are going to have to fight against state level laws that give the same people that knocked them up, in situations of dubious consent, authority to sue them for obtaining legal abortions in other states. They have a potentially even bigger nightmare currently in the works, right this very minute, because the same court that passed the ruling that GAVE them those rights is currently controlled partly by at least one mentally ill fanatic. I am frustrated because I care about their reproductive liberty from the bottom of my heart, and I have spent the past generation watching them throw that liberty away while they have pursued a "call everything humanly possible an act of rape" crusade and thereby created an entire subculture of pissed-off young reactionaries. They have dug themselves into a hole, and they are going to have to turn around and dig their way back out again. I care about women's rights, and that's why I am so disappointed, right now, in the 21st Century's toxic, authoritarian, and ultimately self-defeating interpretation of feminism.

The rest of what we call the "woke" culture is just as toxic and self-defeating for a variety of reasons, but the most central reason is really the most simple reason: they have taken their eyes off of the issues that mean the most to their personal safety and livelihoods, and instead of making it easier to be on their side, they have made it more complex and difficult for someone to be accepted as an ally. I am descended from Confederate non-commissioned officers. I reject the argument that they believed they were doing anything besides defending their own states, which they considered to be their nations. I have read their war diaries. I know what they really thought about during the war. However, I also marched in a Black Lives Matter protest because I agree that it's not okay for a police officer to murder somebody, which is not because I don't respect police officers but because I really very much respect police officers and consequently hold them to a higher standard than such insanity. The "woke" way of thinking would treat me as an enemy of that cause, but I am obviously not to anyone that knows me.

I know that the left is imperfect. They make mistakes. They make such serious mistakes I want to hit them very hard for being stupid. At heart, I also believe in these people. I know that their intentions are pure. My desire to beat them, sometimes, is that of a proud but frustrated parent that screams at their undeniably gifted but impossibly stubborn child for wasting their gifts and goofing off. I know what these people are capable of. They are capable of seeing a purity of intent in people like us, and when they have seen that purity of intent, they can become the most amazing superheroes. They are pretty hard-headed, and I will not deny that. When the message gets through, though, I think you will be impressed with them.

Yet I say that with the same anxiety as the parent of a musically gifted kid that hasn't watched their kid actually perform for others in years because they were hiding in their bedroom crying because they are so fearful that everything will go wrong like the time when they tried unsuccessfully to do a polka version of "Flight of the Bumblebee." It is a terrifying experience to believe in what somebody can do if they only would.

Right now, the right-wing only APPEARS to be letting you use other minority groups as a human shield, but where they are concerned, you are just farther back in line. They will get to you. You are cattle.

The left-wing is likely to recognize the inherent faults in their basic strategy, over the past generation, long before they have done very much to hurt you. A time will come when they have realized, based on the consequences of their own mistakes, that liberation itself is the only clear path to liberation. They will figure it out. I believe in them. They messed up. However, unlike the right-wing, the left-wing will acknowledge that they messed up. It's in their nature to acknowledge when they have been wrong, so they can try to be better. That is what makes these guys the real superheroes in our culture.

Everyone laughed at me when I said that they would pull out a victory, this year, which included some people that sympathized with my views, but I KNOW these people. When the chips are really down and when there is something serious at stake, then they are superhuman. When they make up their minds to get their shit together, then you can't stop them. The only time when leftists lose is when they don't realize how badly they want to win. If there had been clear evidence they were not committed to victory, this year, then I would have been worried. I literally gambled that they would win because it's the surest bet I ever made.

I will tell you the real reason that "woke" culture worries me. It's not the intentions behind it that worry me. The problem with "woke" culture is not the fact that they are "waking up" to perceiving the reality of injustice, but the problem with it is that they are choosing to deal with that injustice by being unjust, themselves. Two wrongs don't make a right, and that's always been true. When you add problem to problem, you just get more problem. I think that a time will come when this has become obvious, but until they "wake up" to injustice always being a problem, even when past victims of injustice are doing it, I do not think that "wokeness" will fulfill its promise.

Do not trust the right-wing, though. To them, you are not really free. You are just obediently standing in line for the slaughter. They might fatten you for a while with grain-feed, but do not trust them. They might cut down the poor and disabled first, but do not trust them. From there, they might cut down the queers and the people of color, but do not trust them. They might joyously butcher a woman in the name of the wrinkled underdeveloped fetus which they worship as the image of their false god, but do not trust them. They might even butcher the Muslims before they get to you, and who knows? They might even give you a sniff of the meat; for a while, they might let you live in a fantasy that they have accepted you as one of them, but do not trust them. You know already that they are thugs. You know already that they are cancer. Beware.

The only people that will ever give you a chance are those that have acknowledged your uniqueness and immutability as a minority group, and that is the left-wing. They might have a long way to go before they have really accepted you, but they have made an important concession already by acknowledging that you exist. They have begun to slowly acknowledge that this is something about you that they do not have the power to change, and while they might not like realizing that they do not have the power to change you, they will come to grips with that fact. We must not give up on them. No matter how misguided they sometimes are, they are the good guys.

The left-wing of our politics and society are clearly imperfect, but remember this wisdom for as long as you live: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

I do not think that I have made such a fine point of my politics before, but I have now.


Until next time,
Sigma
Back
Top