[Toot!] Index: 5
Communism Bit: On
This is one of those times I start with a title. Some times, I figure it out after the last sentence is written. You’ll likely know it is a spin-off of the SOS-Racisme slogan, Touche Pas à Mon Pote. So I’m trying to say: Don’t [You Dare] Touch My Population.
You know what happens in India, because of the artificial limits to how many children can be born to a couple? Baby girls get killed (because, in Bharat, they pay the dowry, not the guys). Baby girls get aborted (more abortion ranting later on). Baby girls are never registered. Parents favour boys, and so the girls suffer. They can’t just pull our move of “let’s try again; a woman’s sixteenth kid is usually a boy”. No, they don’t, because the government limits the numbers.
You know what happens in China, because of the artificial limits to how many children can be born to a couple? The single kids are pampered and lacking in sibling experience, so some become obese and anti-social—Chairman Mao, come back and save China! (I envisage a horde of round Peking kids up to their necks in dung, under banners of It Is a Workers’ Revolution!) In China, baby girls get killed (because, in the Red Sunrise, boys are favoured over girls for prestige in older culture—pre-Cultural Revolution). Baby girls get aborted. Baby girls are not registered. Parents sometimes go to other countries to have their babies. A lady was recently found to have tens of pins in her flesh, and doctors said they were inserted in her as a baby. (Turns out her grandma wanted to kill her so a baby boy may take her place.) This, comrades, is what happens when a population is artificially-limited.
Why am I saying all this stuff? Because of three things:
- There are people who are worried about our population,
- and yet there is never a reason to worry about populations.
- America is telling them that limiting our population is a good thing; this is an exterminationist ploy.
I don’t watch television much. This one time I was at my friend’s place, and I saw the minister in charge of our population (I forget the exact name of the portfolio). She was unveiling a book, Report on The State of Uganda’s Population. The usual statistics: highest population growth in the world—high fertility, by 2050 we’d have 150 million people, 50% under fifteen years old, and what this latter one implies (though it seems to have caught them by surprise, for a reason I can’t quite tell), viz. rising teenage pregnancies. There was also the usual reaction: limit births! Control births! Quick! We’ll be over-run by them wailing babies! This is what has prompted this post.
I hate it when people make it look like a fast-growing population (even one that we don’t seem to know how to provide for) is a bad thing. See, Japan’s population is falling, as is that of Western Europe (even if you count immigrants). Those populations (and China’s) have fallen below replacement levels (where more people die than are born). This is where we would be headed. The difference is that nobody forced it upon Western Europe. It isn’t by law. Logic, therefore, says that populations can fall of their own accord: why should we compel people to not have Little One, even when they want to or can? Especially considering that populations have proven that they can go down of their own accord?
By stopping everyone from having many kids because someone can’t provide for his/her kids, we are imputing the silliness of some random guy on others. (We’d sooner jail everyone, because I stole a banana from the lady at that shop over there. I’ll pay her, by the way. But she should not leave her stall unattended; should teach her a lesson.) It is not bad to have a falling population, just as it is not bad to have a rising one. The IMF is not telling Europe to pop more kids, as though the negative effects of a falling, aging population don’t exist. Why do they insist on us cutting back on the fertile sex, when, in fact, we need a bigger population to develop (faster)? Because logic isn’t their goal: extermination is. I’ll come back to this.
These countries that have falling, aging populations pay big pensions, and nobody knows where the pensions will come from when everybody is old and imobile. Of course they would come from an immigrant working force if they’d ever come, and this underlines why we should have more kids: there is need for more (but not necessarily in their countries of birth; it’s myopic of the IMF—International Monetary Fund!—to forget that immigration is the way of humans, and it helps transfer populations and spread them evenly).
Do you want Uganda to be like them ageing countries? Now, what if Japan got an epidemic that kills in huge numbers? Or an atomic bomb (we are still in Nippon, yes)? Populations are not a now-issue. They are also a padding against any major deaths that may not be foreseen. But because the IMF knows this, and it is just an American imperialist body, they are encouraging our suicide. And the standard Ugandan’s reaction? I’ll help you guess: what do Uganda’s educated people choose, when given a potentially-dangerous idea from the West, and any other idea that’s not from the West? All you blind worshippers of your killers, fuck you. (And I say that with love, because many of you are friends.)
What we are doing is fleeing from a problem that is largely just imagined and only probably going to happen. The benefits of a big population are real and tangible. Guess the choice we made. Actually, we didn’t make that choice. In fact, Museveni’s refusal to control the population is frequently on record, and one of the only things he has refused to take on. It may be because it is unpopular here. But also maybe because he is a wise dude. (Don’t wrestle me on this one; there will be a time and place for that.)
The choice was made in America, when them neo-Nazi wasps were giving us the conditions on which they’d pay us what they owe us. Debt and poverty are bad if only for the way they enslave you without any chains you can fight tangibly. (So that entire swathes of our populations think they are free—you bloggers, especially—when they will be affected by decisions made by neo-Nazi exterminationists who can’t pronounce your country right. And since the chains are invisible, you can’t start fighting them. If you do, you’re mad. I’m mad.)
(At this point, I took a break and had some hot, spicy, home-made Japanese curry, with goat meat and carrot dices. Ate it with the chopsticks we got from the Chinese lady next to Four Turkeys Bar. All this I disclose to provide an explanation for my change in tone, if it goes softer.)
Don’t tell people to cut back on kids. They will see that, for example, those with many kids stay broke. After about one generation of that, the average new family will be small. This is simple to see, but (as I said) it doesn’t help with extermination, and that’s why it’s not on the table. The graph that number-of-kids-per-family follows is an undulating sinusoidal one. Up one generation, down the next, up the next, down the next. This is because, when less kids are had, there is wealth to encourage more kids, and then the wealth dwindles, and then the kids reduce, then the wealth returns ... It’s been like that for thousands of years. The West should snap out of this (largely racist) superiority complex that makes them try to take our countries and try to model them after some fucking ideal they have between their pink ears. (I see my red tone survived the meal.) This has always been the goal of any empire: fashion a series of submissive states according to your best interests (a phrase Americans bandy about often). It is in their best interests that there be as few of us as possible. Spot the imperialist.
My point in this frothing-at-the-beak paragraph (I realise I failed to make it) is that populations regulate themselves safely. Humans regulate populations unsafely. They tell you that Europe is prosperous because it can provide for its (comparatively-few) people. Stupid myopic bullshit. Europe wasn’t killing babies to get wealthy. (They did kill babies; but those were African babies, not European ones. Selah.) Indeed, Europe became wealthy because of a big population. I’ll elaborate: a big population was necessary to power the industrial revolution. When Africa threatens to have an industrial revolution, it is necessary for them to attack the one spot that makes it happen (not the technology—the steam engine was invented by Heron 2,000 years ago, in Africa—but the people). When the plague killed off many people in Western Europe, there were people left because there had been some before. So a big population saved them. Imagine a bird flu outbreak in Europe. If it doesn’t kill all of them, it’s because there are many of them. And if there are too many people, such things are natural controls (versus artificial controls). Next paragraph, please.
Thank you. We live at the Equator. Life is vigorous at the equator. The ’Mericans come here to see gorillas and chimps and monkeys (and are shocked when they see people as well, especially the ones who aren’t wielding seven-foot spears). Why here? This is the equator. Life lives, around here. (The comma!) That life liveth, here, means that a booming population is not a strange thing. It’s the way of equatorial populations. Not just human populations: viral populations, too. Malaria parasites and vectors, and all manner of insect, worm, and germ will be common here. The best way for a population to survive in this region is to have many offspring (calfs, puppies, kittens, chicks (the animal), chicks (the people), kids (the animal), and, of course, kids (the people)). It’s not just humans with many kids. It’s only here that you found cultures that ideally required every man to have thousands of cattle, for example. It’s not an accident. It’s the ancient wisdom that the West assumes Africans don’t have. (As do the “educated” Africans; what the West says and does is, to them, the right thing.) The ancients knew their land very well, and knew that those thousands of cattle will just drop dead with anthrax in, at most, ten years. Of the thousands, ten will survive and quickly generate a new set of thousands. That’s the nature of where we live. The IMF isn’t interested in your survival. The less of you there are, the easier it will be to rape your country and bully you and take your gold and your oil, and you won’t be able to fight, neither with stick nor with gun, because there will only be two old, toothless relics of you.
Rwanda is an equatorial country, and also has the highest population density in the World. This is after that Western-caused and Western-sponsored genocide that Rwanda endured. Had they a small population, they’d have been decimated. Yet the killing may have been a (macabre, unsettling) way to naturally control the numbers. If I’m still failing to make my point, here it is: equatorial regions are supposed to be bursting with high populations of everything imaginable, both prey and predator (and you know the graph of the relation between prey populations and predator poulations). And the Great Lakes region is an interlacustrine one. The availability of the perfect environment for unbounded breeding of everything shouldn’t elicit anything short of admiration, except if you throw some unashamed imperialists in the mix. How the fuck can they, the killers of our mothers, get the nerve to tell us what is best for us? (I shouldn’t forget to note that the perfect region, the interlacustrine Great Lakes region of equatorial Africa has the perfect city, Entebbe, the city of the gods, where I am as I type this. O, Entebbe.)
(The irony is that our Enemy plans way ahead, with inspiring patience. We, on the other hand, in our stupid chase for what we deem cool for today, are so short-termist. Consider, for example, our current obsession with political instability. Yes, we want this stupid, unproductive thing called political instability. Not because anybody can point to any definitive good thing that will certainly come of it—I dare you to—but because America tells us to want that. Don’t wonder why it is the “educated” Africans, eager to demonstrate their progressive attitudes and their intelligence, who call for our governments to have a few short terms each. The danger is not in the short-staying presidents/governments, but in their inability to work with who comes next in a continuational fashion. In other countries, the state has a plan that, for the most part, every next government will carry out. In that case, it’s safe for presidents to last under twenty years. But here it’s different—not bad, just different. Whoever goes will leave with his/her dreams and plans. In this case, you need them to last over twenty years, so that they can try out everything, fail, modify, repeat, until their pictures in the papers start to look ugly, then they leave—even if in disruptive (even violent) fashion.
Americans know this, and they tell you to change presidents frequently, because that will keep you from seeing any patterns or planning long enough. (Besides, Ugandans should know better: we’ve had one-month presidents many times before, and there is nothing good that came of it.) And because you are educated, you do as you are told. This, by the way, is nearly the only thing school achieves that couldn’t be done elsewhere: it teaches you to follow stupid orders without thinking. You live by a bell’s ringing for all your formative years and expect to ever think for yourself when the time for it comes? And the imperialists who set up our school systems were looking out for the British Empire to have many clerks saying “Yes, super-human British People; anything you’ll ask of me, milord.”, but they ended up providing clerks who say “Yeah, über-cool American dudes; whatever floats your boat, man.” Either way, it provided an empire’s yes-people who are convinced they are free (and are therefore incapable of fighting their chains—on pain of the psycho-ward).
Jean-Paul Sartre, you were wrong. :o( Parthenon! ...thenon. ...thenon. Brotherhood! ... therhood. ... therhood.
The danger here, of course, is that the “educated” Africans rush after what’s cool, and the imperialists reserve the right to specify what is cool.)
So, you see that I’m not against controlling the population. I’m against doing it in an artificial pattern. If the Earth overflows, some people should leak into Solaria, into Venus or Mars, maybe, and so on. That won’t be a bad thing. Necessity is the mother of ... We could just use Time Lord technology and stack them all into one fucking box. Doctor! Doctor! DOCTOR!
Either way, the unfortunate things that happen to babies in a case where the extant idiots (some of whom are no longer capable of optimally working for their own bread) are preferred to new blood can’t be justified by fear alone. Populations control themselves, or we invent ways to stomach them well. The IMF knows these things, but population control isn’t even their worry. Our existence is their worry.
I already expressed how I feel about abortion. A life is really too high a price to pay for convenience. Especially when it is the convenience of some ruling class’ budget plans, rather than the convenience of the people in the bedroom (which, too, I tend to be against). Some people deserve to be killed, for a variety of reasons. Population growth is not one of those reasons.
I’ll take this chance to reply to one Anonymous, a diligent reader of my blog (thank you, bambi).
77% of anti-abortion people are men. 100% of men will never get pregnant.Of course. But if that was meant to prove that my anti-abortion stand was typical, dismissible, and/or insensitive, it failed. I mean: 77% of pro-abortion people are women. 100% of them are of child-bearing age, and a good percentage are having unprotected sex. What did I prove? Rien. Or maybe I proved that those in danger of bearing kids are readier to abort them, which isn’t a stunning discovery. Let’s argue this on other points, not cyclic non-proofs.
Anyway, to come back on course, we have just seen that the Enemy wants us to kill our babies in such unmotherly brutality, for none of the reasons that may even be considered, but simply because we fear to go against this law that, in pure imperialist fashion, was passed down from the empire’s headquarters. People won’t stop having kids. They’ll just kill more, as children become as dispensible as shirt buttons, because they fill the same niche: conform or die. Ryde or die. Be a boy or die. Be a girl or die. What the fuck?
My trusty proof-reader ... I’ll start capitalising it. So, my Trusty Proof-Reader just said that China made it okay to have another child if you have a girl first. Hmm. So, they saw the problem and solved it? No. People are now killing boys if they come first, so that they can mix things up a bit and have a widdle booyi and a widdle gaayo. Can sanity return, please? Also, Trusty Proof-Reader compels me, with no little amount of physical violence, to note that China allows two kids in the rural areas. Can I go on? Yes. Good.
I would be done, at this point, if I didn’t want to lengthen it enough such that I throw enough of you off. I have the short posts for those who want them. The long ones have a certain audience that I try to sift through by padding these rants with empty paragraphs such as this one. It’s all a trick. And this isn’t long enough yet. I’ll say my main point again here: they want to kill us by our own hands. Since they control what we like, they can make us like to exterminate ourselves, and we will do it. They can make it cool to emasculate oneself, and Africa will be burning testicles to generate fuel. This slavery is non-obvious—it is mostly in the mind. So fighting against it makes you look like a hallucinating psychopath. Africa’s biggest enemy is the African who is well-schooled. They speak and write good English, and they paste their newspaper colums and weblogs in English, and in subliminal adoration of their Western slave drivers, and continually say that the way it is done over there is the right way, they say we should govern our people in the way that the Westerners do (or, failing that, the way the Westerners say), not knowing that they are among the governed, and that they would have to try and exterminate people from the colonies to make room for more-luxurious living in the imperial base (kill the Africans and Arabs, get more oil, drive more cars, bigger cars, live the American Dream, all at the low cost of 99.95 Africans) if they were to govern in this fashion that normally is called “democracy”. The West is in the jaws of a credit crunch: a swathe of the world living beyond its means. Whole economies built with money that doesn’t exist. But if we have more educated Africans, they will sell off everything they have in exchange for the right to be called “democratic” and “progressive” and even “first-world”.
Allow me to proceed on this thread. (It started out as a lengthening ruse, but it has got a head and legs.) They know that their statistics and news stories are going to be accessed by these educated Africans. Actually, I should be quoting that “educated” because these Africans are just schooled, not educated. That’s why their jobs ask for experience. If they were educated in school, they’d not need the experience to educate them. Indeed, experience (and anybody will tell you this) is mainly to undo the rigid stupidity of school (only in that job, though—they remain well-schooled for other things, as we sshall soon see). School also shows that they respond to the bell and switch from their history book to their literature book, then to their geography with no trouble at all. Capable of being told to do ten disparate things in a short space, not managing (or needing) long periods of concerted, concentrated thinking. Cramming dates and formulae, then spewing them just in time to pass this test, then forgetting them just as soon, and even having to repeat the process with the same stuff a few more times. (They lie to kids that finals test all the previous years in school, when the evidence is, in fact, that they test only the last year or two: finals are not designed to ingrain anything, and that is why cramming-and-spewing works well for passing our finals.)
School breaks people in to the life of a clerk, an unthinking yes-person, a cog in a giant empire-wide wheel. No room for developing a style or a reason for one. So, school teaches them that, then it is used at their jobs. They are paid shit, but they never realise it, because that requires concerted thinking on questions like, Why does it seem like I’m always broke just before every other pay-cheque, even after a raise? In this way, they are slapped in-between the palms of the capitalist wage slavery system, and are incapable of breaking out, because they are well-schooled. Or, for that matter, “educated”. They don’t even stop to ask why nobody ever gets wealthy because he/she is schooled, but (if ever) by simple effort. (And, to be fair, the British man never said you should be schooled to get wealthy; only so that you get a job. Clerks are highly-needed, so you’ll get a job. Clerks are not highly-paid.) Ever wondered why what you can do doesn’t matter, only that you have a degree (proof that you can be treated like an automaton and still be subservient, happy, and intimidated when the need arises)?
This is a very insidious thing, because these “schooled” Africans now write in our papers and put stuff on TV. They become headless propaganda machines, declaring what the empire wants as what we should be doing having been told what to want, which was easy because they are schooled, remember). It’s why, honestly, a suppression of our media wouldn’t constitute a major loss. It may even be a gain, as long as we can surf the government issues in the cafés. They are our intellectuals. Headless intellectuals, that’s the picture. (Hehehe. iTunes just jumped to Bittersweet Symphony. Woah.) Now, because our intellectuals are well-schooled, you’ll note that they are far from the dictionary definition of “intellectual”. Me, I’m proudly un-schooled, and maybe I retain some semblance of independence. They punish us for not being schooled by only letting schooled people into some circles, while we shine the shoes outside. Bread or Freedom? :o) My last qualifications are S4, so I guess, while something in me was killed, something must have survived. (Americans, I think our S4 corresponds to your eleventh grade.)
Last paragraph; stay seated. Think of all the people, therefore, who think of our growing population with panic. Those are our intellectuals. (The unschooled ones, we just pop our kids and listen to nobody. Sex is fun, in any case; we can barely hear anything above the fun.) I remember seeing, ‘twas in the New Vision, I believe, a map that showed food security in Uganda. Our intellectuals believed it, and that is the problem. It painted the whole country in green (the peak of food security, a flower to admired by all), except the North East of Uganda, which was in the red (dangerous situation).
There would be no problem if New York had been painted red, too. (I’d get a massive kick out of seeing the colours of the Revolution cover that side so beautifully, for the first time.) New York is deemed to have better food security that the North (and that's why the books and maps are about us, not them). There lies the problem. Our intellectuals don’t do no concerted thinking. New York, and most parts of the West, for that matter, are farther from their food supplies than the North is. The North is self-sufficient*, but would get from the rest of Uganda (and the Sudan and Kenya, et cetera) in the event of poor rains and the like. There is more food waiting to go to the North than there is waiting to go to the combined West. That’s what food security is defined as. (A single well-placed nuke bomb could have Americans starving to normal sizes in all the cities.) But they painted the North red. I’d not mind if they meant we are Communist up there. They just played on stereotypes that schooled Ugandans believe (because they are schooled and incapable of ...) and managed to elicit belief. Believe it or not. An American attaché must have looked the map over and thought, How, now that the Kony guy done gone away, shall we maintain a need to be in the North?. His fat chin creased for a while, as he thought. Then he grinned, and pulled a red marker and painted the North. That way, the bags that scream USAID! USAID! Help From the American People! USAID!, carrying genetically-modifed “corn” would be plentiful yet. (Just to clarify, the American people of whom the bags speak are not the Natives. It’s hard to give help from a reservation concentration camp, you see. The bags mean the benevolent land-owners who caged the Natives. I guess we have something the Natives don’t have; Doohnibor is a neologism that means: to steal from those who do not have to give those who have.)
Ever noticed that, though there may be other bags in an area, only the USAID bags get the CNN shot? Ever noticed that these pictures are prominent, of semi-nude Africans chasing after American benevolence, as it tumbles out of the American jets? This picture, of the empire that spreads peace, love, kindness, progress, is the one Americans want the schooled people to believe. They believe too. Believing the map was step one; step two is believing the pictures on CNN. Step three is believing stuff like “Uganda can’t possibly get rid of the food insecurity that currently plagues her, unless the population and birth rates are controlled [...]” The worst belief, though, is that we even need any aid. That we would be doomed if we didn’t do what the imperialists want us to do (especially when the believed reason for the doom is “cutting aid”).
Our intellectuals, again, can only tell political bunches apart by whether or not they are for the term limits or not. No such shit as left-wing, right-wing, whatever. Nobody bothers, because the imperialists don’t want us to worry about such stuff. You see, it would expose the ideologies, and people would start to think. That’s bad for them. If they keep us glued to stupid things like term limits and so on, we won’t have any time to consider who wants a Communist government. We’ll only be thinking the stupid thoughts of children. I saw some intellectuals debating what Obama’s victory means for Africa. Headless intellectuals, they are. They don’t stop to wonder why it should matter who is running WA (because we are a conquered state, which is bad). They just accept that we should consider it as something that affects us. They’ve been told by the empire that it determines their fate, so they debate that. Not whether or not we should even be caring who runs that heap in the West (and not, for example, how Lucy Kibaki is feeling this morning). They are headless intellectuals, automata, unthinking, well-schooled.
* It feels good to write North and self-sufficient in the same clause. Woo-hoo, Juche! :o)