The End of Zoos

Could you round up, let's say, three humans and keep them in a holding area (a cage or a pen, for instance) and run tests on them, experiment on them, or even just charge people to see them? I assume you couldn't, in most cases today, as that would be a kind of slavery. But we have done this for a long time in our relationship with all other animals. At bottom, it’s a power relation: master-owner over slave-property; and so great a mind as Aristotle's thought of human slaves as someone's property without any comment as to how there might be a problem with it. It was just part of a “natural” order, seemingly.

Humans are quite different from any other animals we know of, but we have long believed we are not just "different" from all other animals but somehow better (in various ways). And most religions have justified the enslavement, destruction, and harm of all other animals by rationalizing that power relation, mainly with ideas about humans having some posited "soul" or "likeness to God(s)." It would be ironic if more “atheistic” perspectives wind up arguing against such a power relation, since it seems to be a case of some animals enslaving other animals; of members of one species who chose themselves as superior beings -- all pretty arbitrary and insanely self-important.

And then, presumably, there might be further implications to pursue, like comparisons to humans’ widespread opposition to cannibalism. If you won’t make a meal out of your favorite dog, let alone your favorite farmhand, what’s the reasoning behind making one out of a calf or a lamb? Would it seem like a blurb for a horror movie: Mary had a little lamb, And then she ate its flesh……

A Problem of Nihilism: Essay 1

About a decade ago, I had a job that required a commute of just over an hour to get to work. That gave me some time to think about things. I eventually recognized that certain areas of research and rumination led to serious doubts about meaning and value in life. I finally had an idea to combine the various topics in a writing exercise for 500-word essays. But I reached an impasse when I realized I had not wanted to write an overly long and complicated analysis of entire historical periods. (I also became extremely busy with the cartoon series “Scum On Top.”) So, these essays end where I left off, but they now serve as a foundation for most of what I’m addressing in "Scum (Back) On Top."

According to my notes, although I wrote the essays much earlier, I had settled on a preliminary title as dated “4-19-21:  Republicans, the Radical Right, and the Final Victory of Nihilism: A Primer.”

-----------------------

"A Problem of Nihilism: Essay 1"

 

For the past few years, I have thought that anyone who wanted to test their religious faith might consider three areas to examine. (This would also apply to test one's belief in a "purpose to the world."

 

 Serial killers. In themselves, the extent of the crimes and the relative impunity with which the killers operate are disturbing enough. The number of them in the 1970s alone is startling. And while the atrocities of Dean Corlii are horrifying, someone like Gary Ridgway and his casual disposal of scores of victims is baffling. A meaningful order in things might seem a bit in doubt when a man can get away with killing a human being every other week or so for a long time.

Organized crime. Corruption is routine. Anyone can be "leaned on," bought off, or otherwise used. Any offender can be "rubbed out," which is at most a necessary evil. Tribal loyalty is the basis of ethics, though that is still tenuous, as "honor" can be a pretense for obedience. And as epitomized in the climax of the film "The Godfather," there can be quite a gulf between formal observance of religious ritual and "how things are in the real world." (Which is implicitly atheistic, with no God recognized as a barrier to any evil.)

Genocide. The mass murder of entire peoples. From the most ancient times, in tribal warfare, wherein people of a vanquished foe are utterly wiped out. Then with the rise of great empires that crush all dissent. Later, expanded wealth and technical knowledge led to naval voyages that resulted in "discoveries" of "New Worlds" and the spread of colonial empires. Native peoples are conquered and corralled and nearly eradicated, their victims to a great extent unnumbered, unnamed and unknown.

That anonymity and offhand disposal of the victims seem to be distinctive features of all of the above. A further instance would be that of the peoples of Africa, who were notably subject to slavery. Bought and sold as if they were a kind of livestock, barely named or known except as one would one's farm animals. And even long after emancipation, they could still be dispensed with in a lynching or an isolated unsolved murder here and there.

In Nazi Germany, of course, the victims were numbered and known, like inventory items. The process reached a level of efficiency that seems to have set a standard. In that odd case, the enemies were not so much "real" (in the way Carthaginians might be) as they were scapegoats, seen as specters of pure evil. (A delusion that came from decades of being exposed to notions about racial "health" and "purity." The threat came from anyone who did not "belong," from those deemed "unfit" or "unworthy of life." Or who otherwise seemed a "danger," likened to invasions of vermin or an "infection" in the "body.")

Some Thoughts On The Donald Sterling Case

The Donald Sterling case is one of those things that disturbs people because it makes them think more than they're usually required. Over the past year, United States Supreme Court rulings have helped to clarify that plutocracy really is the best form of government after all, and that racial discrimination is a thing of the past.

Corruption of unions by employers is okay.

Corruption in political elections is okay.

State governments which were formerly under some suspicion are now okay.

Federal action to ameliorate institutionalized discrimination is not okay.

An important precedent had been set in late January 2010, when the Court had ruled that since corporations are "persons" -- and spending money is a form of "speech" -- any limitation on corporate spending in elections constitutes a limitation on freedom of speech. (A corporation is also a "gathering of citizens," you see.)

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

Hmmmm, "attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible"? I guess that would give them more free time for golf and knitting, but it does raise the question as to just what the hell they understand their job to be.

Anyway, what's the point here, right? Well, one point is that stuff like the information above doesn't catch too many people's attention, despite the fact that it represents the abandonment of the concept of the need for government to serve the best interests of all the people -- providing some protection and a theoretical guarantee of civil rights for minority populations against the institutional dominance and inherent discrimination of a majority population; and providing some protection and a theoretical guarantee of civil rights for individual citizens against the potential abuses of those who hold real power in society. In other words, the idea that the weak should be protected from the strong.

Another point is that one reason such information doesn't catch many people's attention may be because they are not adequately informed by a free press. Which makes complete sense, because corporate media by definition cannot include a free press: you only hear what you're allowed to hear -- that which is permissible from the perspective of those who own the press.

In that context, it's easy enough for some old turd like Cliven Bundy to be found to be an idiot, and for some middle-aged idiot like Sean Hannity to wind up with egg on his face for his forthright support of Bundy. After all, Bundy got a nice photo op riding a horse while carrying the American flag despite proclaiming that he doesn't recognize the existence of the national government which that flag sorta represents; who would've guessed that Bundy's ideas and opinions would be those shared by members of Far Right militia groups, armed "patriots" dedicated to white supremacy and such??????

But Donald Sterling came as more of a shock: owner of a sports franchise in a league literally full of African-American athletes. Who would have guessed that his private attitudes were merely a more modern version of those of the master of a plantation? And that is the fundamental reason why his private comments were so disturbing when revealed publicly: suddenly people had to think.

To think about the fact that the majority of the people on the basketball court who are playing the game are black, whereas the majority of the people in the stands watching the game are white (as well as referees, management and owners -- those in positions of "authority"). Now those who have worked for Sterling can't rationally continue to do so -- it would tend to confirm the idea that they are his property, and were bought to please the crowd.

To think about why there was no great outrage previously when Sterling was required to pay a record settlement for having discriminated against black and Hispanic applicants to rent at his properties. Those were merely lower-class human beings being affected, and a man has a right to do what he likes with his property; that sort of thing is far less important than the bigoted private opinions he held, despite the fact that the latter would seem likely to have influenced his real-world discrimination.

To think about how awesome it might look if the student body of American institutions of higher learning becomes whiter and whiter (a consequence of the preferential acceptance of the privileged children of alumni), while their athletic departments continue to provide full scholarships to non-whites whose only apparent value to the school -- and, implicitly, in society -- is their athletic ability.


In listening to the full conversation it's obvious that Ms. Stiviano is far from a saint. Their conversation is carried over from an immediately prior conversation, which she repeatedly urges him to continue now that she's recording it. She acts the part of a pleasant nurse, "sweetie," as she gets some juice for an old man. She had allegedly eventually professed an intention to "get even," suggesting that her recording of this particular private conversation was done at the time to have a weapon to use against him. My interpretation may come as a quite a shock if you're inclined to believe her love was ever real; after all, beautiful young women the world over have always been dying to have sex with wrinkled-up old men.

It should also be noted that despite the extraordinary stream of stupid ideas expressed by Sterling, not once does he use the most common racial slur in describing black people. Good for him; that's some progress right there (unless he's only one of those upper-class gentlemen who won't stoop to the gutter-language of thugs on the street). I guess these considerations regarding a rich white man and his mistress are one of the reasons these issues are typically referred to as tragic.

==================================

Another interesting thing that comes out of the conversation is Sterling's contentious attitude about his bigotry being compared to antisemitic bigotry -- as exemplified in the Holocaust, for instance. I don't think this is just a simple case of hypocrisy. When a Jewish American is unable to see or unwilling to acknowledge the connection between the Holocaust and racism per se, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is just another stupid white person. It probably also means that the Holocaust is regarded as a unique defining event exclusive to Jewish identity and to no one else; in other words, a case of idolatry.

That goes a long way towards explaining the problem of dealing with the nation of Israel on a rational basis: anything done in its name is justified because of the Holocaust.

This is why the real meaning of "not taking the name of the Lord in vain" doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with cussing or exclaiming, "Jesus Christ!" It means not seeking to justify our actions by claiming that "God is on our side."

==================================

When I attended college in the early 1980s, my Major adviser in International Studies was a Muslim professor originally from Madras, India. I occasionally pursued questions with him that I couldn't figure out answers for. For instance, I once asked why the US government did not regard its relationship with Turkey as much more important to our interests than it did to our relationship with Israel. (Answer: the Israel Lobby.) Another time I brought up a question about Soviet influence in Africa; it's still funny that he hesitated and looked at me with a bemused expression as he cautiously offered this white Hoosier (with Kentucky only a river away) the opinion that Russians are white and regarded as such in the non-white world. (In other words, more of the same, from their perspective.)

That certainly helped put an alleged ideological battle in perspective, and ordinarily it would only be an interesting anecdote and a nice memory for me. But today in eastern Europe, young whites are listening to rap music and their own derivations of it, and apparently think it's cool to greet groups of friends by saying "Wazzup Niggas?" That might somehow be considered progress, if it weren't occurring among white people still capable of harboring prejudice against other white people, like Gypsies and Jews; it's frightening to think what their honest attitudes toward non-white people could possibly be, however much they might like amusing one another with the modern equivalence of minstrel shows and Amos n' Andy routines.