the salt makers

It is a good old cliche that the modern western mindset is one with mysticism.

No one embodies this more sharply than the modern protester--one so thoroughly indoctrinated into a mystic framework that shouting and stamping become his means of communication. A person whose idea of dialogue is to travel in numbers to a place where his cult can be a social nuisance. At this location, there will presumably be a speech by the group leader, so the masses can receive the dogma. And in the grand tradition of mysticism, the ceremonies entail lots and lots of drug use.

This is not to say that protesters have no place. In certain points in history, the majority will marginalize a group unjustly. In the famous cases of women's suffrage and the civil rights movement, the protesters proved instrumental in effecting change. But it is important to consider the manner of their protest. Here is a well-known quotation by Frances Wright, taught in most high-school history classes:

However novel it may appear, I shall venture the assertion, that, until women assume the place in society which good sense and good feeling alike, assign to them, human improvement must advance but feebly. It is in vain that we would circumscribe the power of one half of our race, and that half by far the most important and influential. If they exert it not for good, they will for evil; if they advance not knowledge, they will perpetuate ignorance.

A speech of this nature would be a novelty in today's America. The speaker is protesting against the present authority, but without decrying them as being essentially evil or oppressive. She claims that women are entitled to vote, but she can defend this assertion on grounds that it benefits society's welfare. The entitlement is not assumed; it is proven.

The point deserves to be made, and without any subtlety: effective protest must appeal to the conscience of the host society. Other forms of protest are essentially militant, for they make demands without referencing the host society's laws or the host society's form of justice. Any entity that makes such demands is certainly foreign, and probably our enemy. It is possible to sympathize with a military that opposes the United States (indeed, compassion and good sense demand that we do so temporarily), but we must not confuse their soldiers for our own citizens. When protests begin to use the rhetoric of entitlement or even revolution, then the protesters are not citizens. They have strayed from the fabric of law. They are outsiders.

Fast-forward to the civil rights movement. In 1960, there were two separate modes of protesting. There was the mode of Martin Luther King Jr., which was centered on appealing to conscience and reason through the use of non-violence. There was the mode of Malcolm X, which was centered on power, self-interest, and revolution. Which mode was right and just? Needless to say, both men would lay claim to the title. It is not in the scope of this investigation to answer that question, though I am sure the reader can guess my position. Suffice to say, historians will debate the point.

What this investigation can assert is that the Black Panther members were not citizens. This idea rests on the following premises:

A. Citizens are defined not only nominally, but essentially. That is to say, a man may be nominally a citizen, but if he sells military secrets to Iran, he is not a citizen but a traitor--even if no one knows. The difference between a citizen and a mere resident is two-fold: it is a difference in title, and a difference in loyalty.

B. Violent revolt is inconsistent with loyalty. The truest citizen will accept an unjust punishment from his society, like Martin Luther King, who was jailed, or like Socrates, who faced his execution bravely though he had many chances to escape. If a man decides to fight the powers that accuse him, he may be just, but he is no citizen. From the moment he decides to fight, he is an enemy of the state. There are exceptions to this, but I will leave their consideration to the reader.

C. Making demands upon one's state without appealing to law or justice is inconsistent with loyalty. We know this intuitively. If a man asks us to do something and appeals to our sense of justice, he may or may not be a friend, but if a man merely demands that we do something, we can be fairly sure that he is not our friend.

Fast forward to 2006. The tradition of Martin Luther King has largely died. Though one must concede that his adherence to non-violence survived relatively intact, his concerns for justice and reason have long since decomposed. The tradition of Malcolm X, on the other hand, lives vigorously. Though his tendency toward violent revolt is mostly diminished, the modern protest movement has universally adopted his language of seizing that to which they are entitled, and vilifying authority. Susana Adame:

Bill Cosby took a lot of flack from social justice groups for his comments about black folks needing to take responsibility for their actions. But behind closed doors, far too many radicals copped up with the "You know, he could have said it in a different way, but there's some truth there, man!" rhetoric.

[No one] dared to speak the most obvious truth—that our own insistence on prioritizing "voting" over direct challenges to the legitimacy of the nation/state, prioritizing desegregation with whites over forming alliances with each other ... played a huge part in positioning poor blacks and Mexicans where they are today.

It is perhaps redundant to point out that when poor blacks and Mexicans alter their behavior—become educated and employable—they stand a much better chance of improving their lot in life. Since Adame approved of Bill Cosby's public flogging following his comments, we can infer that she thinks black and Mexican communities should forbid talk of self-improvement.

But it is not the intent of this investigation to debunk the absurd lack of racial dialogue that marks our society. It is merely to point out that protesters are animals. Do not look them in the eye.

Today, most every protest group is angry at some stereotype or another. In fact, this is the very reason that many protest groups exist: to fight stereotypes. Here I quote the wise and witty Seanbaby:

People who cry about stereotypes are usually upset because they fall into them. We don't have time to get to know every single person we see. We have to stereotype people in certain ways to know which one of them wants to kill us for our wallet, which ones can't drive, and which ones enjoy the taste of falafel. If we didn't have stereotypes, we'd be doing stupid shit like walking up to bikers and asking who won today's tennis match.

So if you're Hindu and everyone stereotypes you as someone who doesn't ever go fly fishing, I apologize on the sake of my cruel people. But if it really bothers you, start fly fishing. Otherwise they're right. A less drastic solution would be to distract them with one of your positive stereotypes like how all Hindus have mind powers.

You can use stereotypes to your advantage. For example, if you're tall everyone assumes you play basketball. You could foolishly spend 2 seconds every time you meet a stupid stranger to say, "No, I don't play basketball," or you could initiate SuperPlan X: let them think their stereotypes are true. Then, when the time is just right, you strike... and don't play basketball!

Indeed.



Gay People.
STEREOTYPE: Wanton, narcissistic, unconcerned with the greater good, promiscuous.
HOW PROTESTERS COUNTER THIS: Riding a 12-ft grinning dick, near-nudity, prancing.