2002.1115.0740

let them all kill each other. (part two)

remember 'constructive engagement'? this was reagan's answer to the boycott of apartheid south africa. people like me said don't sell american products until the nationalists are out. people like george schultz said, the influence of american corporations are positive, they should stay. people like me said, i want to support anybody in opposition to the nationalists. george schultz said, if you send money to south africa, you could be supporting a terrorist organization and we can throw you in jail after a secret trial. people like me said, you make me sick to my stomach, george, but i aint going to jail to get nelson out of jail. i was hamstrung, and so were you. so i decided to support constructive engagement with the following rationale: the corrupt american presence will accellerate the popular revolt, sell more big macs!

it's very difficult to be a global citizen if your actions are limited by the state department of an evil administration. ahh the clarity of youth. the bottom line is that if you're not ross perot it makes little sense to think globally, because you can't act globally, not even a little bit. transgressing against the lines set down by the foreign policy of your own government makes you, especially these days, essentially a terrorist. this is how we define terrorism / freedom fighting / warlording / cartelling. if you don't use the national army (or the national bank, or the national spy agency), you run afoul of the international order. it's a national thing.

so you can see how appealing it becomes to retreat into organicism. i mean who wants to be a crusading american bourgie globalist? for all i know, south africans might actually think like mark mathabene. scary, but possible. when you lose the ability to distinguish yourself from the average american consumer / voter / suburban demographic al-qaeda target it's a terrible thing. it's like liking just one song from donna summers' 'bad girls' album and being considered responsible for all of disco.

here's where senseless death and multiculturalism come in. if you wear a red white and blue flag on your left shoulder and kill me on orders of gw, then you are a killer protected by national policy. if you wear a black and white scarf over your head and kill me on orders of arafat, you are a killer protected by international liberal sentiment. if you wear baggy pants and kill me on order of tupac shakur, you are a killer protected by west coast gangsta rap. if you wear whatever you wear and kill me for no apparent reason at all, you are a killer protected by whatever defense you can muster at trial. the reason you kill me has nothing to do with your level of protection. it's simply a numbers game. more people are likely to sympathize with american national policy than international liberal sentiment on down the line to your personal insanity. let me state the obvious: killing me would be a tragedy of world historical proportion. depending on which regime of truth you can credibly invoke, your chances for survival of murder charges vary widely.