The title says it all, but what does it mean ?
I believe a vast majority of things that crawl out of woman belong obeying orders for their entire life without let or respite and without alternative ; and I believe that whether that entire life turns out short, unhappy, incomfortablei, painfulii or otherwise makes very little difference and isn't (nor should be) anyone's concern.
The foregoing stands for most whites as it stands for most blacks ; for most women as it stands for most men ; and for most humans selected by whatever objective measureiii equally well. "Om nu te nasti, om devii" means that no one is born a person. You become a person - and if it were easy everyone'd do it. But it's not easy, and most everyone doesn't do it.
The franchise attaches exclusively to personhood, and for this reason :
- Most bipedal lifeforms, with or without feathers or flat nails, may not own property. This isn't some sort of conventional interdiction, it's not the case that some "we" won't let them. This is merely the recognition of a fundamental characteristics of the subhuman object : it lacks the ability to own. It just doesn't have that property, much like an opaque vase is not transparent. Exactly as a turtle lacks the ability to fly. Most "people" may not own anything for the exact same reason turtles can't fly anywhere ; and just as is the case with turtles - trying to emulate flight by launching them in the air is absolutely always injurious, for them as well as the environment.
- Most bipedal lifeforms, with or without feathers or flat nails, may not form opinions. This isn't simply "may not vote". Literally, they get no say, there's nothing that may proceed from their arbitrariety because lacking the franchise means they lack arbiter. Whether they engage in sexual congress or not is up to the other party. Whether they go to eat here or there ; or whether they eat at all is not up to them.iv Absent franchise, the notion of "liking" a movie or a song is without meaning, and bereft of any interest.v
In short, most "people" aren't. Anything. Most "people" aren't anything. Most "people" aren't people, first and foremost ; and it all follows from there.
Confronted with this statistical truth, the safest move for any individual is to assume slavery as a subjective identity. This because a person that sees himself a slave is at the worst an eccentric, and universally benign ; whereas a non-person that sees himself enfranchised is universally an idiot, by definition a danger to himself and others, and the only available incarnation of evil.
Among the millitantvi idiots the unexpressed and thus unexamined view holds currency that supposedly slavery is a taint, from which one can never recover ; whereas idle pretense to personhood is a sort of duty, cvasi-religious in nature. This happens to be exactly contrary to reality, like pretty much everything else the millitant idiots ever came up with. Slavery actually is the path to personhood ; the alternatives are all magic, and work about as well as magic, but slavery works like technology works. Meanwhile idle pretense put forth on the shaky basis of absent personhood is both very expensive to maintain (all delusions are - but this one's the worst) and an absolute bar to actual individuation and eventual enfranchisement.
I also believe this is the fundamental gender difference - that males mature towards the franchise ; while females mature towards competent slavery id ipsum, with exceptionsvii ; and I am absolutely certain that systematic definitions of the franchise (be they by blood, or skin tone or spoken language or anything else in this vein) are suicidal, the conceptual equivalent of a steamship whose engine is designed to plug into the sink tap.
That'd be it.———
- In- is the privative by the nature of things whereas un- is the privative by evolution of phenomena. Hence you say "Undressed woman" and "Indistinct noise" rather than "Indressed woman" and "Undistinct noise" - the woman can be dressed and certainly at some point was ; the noise is not distinct by its nature nor ever could have been otherwise. This is and also why you say both "indecisive" and "undecisive" as the case may be. [↩]
- As Poincare (not the matemathician, the other one) aptly observed, an avoidance of human suffering can never be the goal of policy, because the only certain way to ensure the desired result is also the simple way : kill everyone. This is, incidentally, exactly the regime under which you're belabouring today. Can you feign surprise convincingly ? [↩]
- See this discussion of what that means ; and while at it see also this. [↩]
- The Latin anecdotal retelling of this is "Si tum, inquis, dives est tum cenare potest cum cupit - si pauper, tum cenare debet cum potest." unduly particularizes the matter - of course most people will be poor, and of course poverty here is not a situation but an identity, and of course its meaning is absent optionality. [↩]
- Which is why the only answer to the "opinions" of anodyne unperson masquerading as a "blogger" is "nobody cares". [↩]
- Those uppity slaves that aren't merely content with posturing for themselves, but aim to also persuade others. [↩]
- Which exceptions are so common in a society at ease as to practically equal the rarity of successful male maturation. [↩]