by
evolution, it can only be overcome with cognition. There is a good
reason why so few films financed by major studios encourage
introspection—it is subconsciously perceived as detrimental to
the agenda of the corporations, which is to keep the population
dull and complacent. Only people disconnected enough from any
sense of self to watch MTV would be undiscerning enough to
inhale the glut of insipid and intoxicating miasma known to
mankind simply as “commercials.”
Honor is used to teach us who to admire and who to revile.
Those who adhere to the social codes for their given class—99%
of celebrities and athletes—are admired and revered because of
the misdirection of our natural love of those with strong
convictions towards those who have only the strong convictions
approved by those in power.
Those in power despise with infinite vitriol the Bill
Watterson’s of the world because the ethic that he exhibits is not
conducive to their vision of utopia, wherein everything and
everyone is for sale; where art is nothing more than a product to
be cynically peddled to the masses for a little capital gain.
What upsets the powerful more than anything about
Watterson’s case is that to berate him openly would have
displayed to the whole world what they really were. Despite all of
our programming to the contrary, many human beings can still
recognize genuine integrity when they see it—which is why
occasionally the powerful let someone with genuine integrity
infiltrate the mainstream. Usually they do it on accident and,
when they’ve realized their mistake, cannot possible fix the
problem as long as the individual of integrity is successful. To do
so would be to declare themselves open enemies of true integrity
and undermine their unquestioned authority.
I fear, however, that the day is fast approaching when few
people will recognize true integrity and the powerful will be in the
position to oppose it openly. It’s as Bill said. “ A person happy
doing his own work is usually considered an eccentric, if not a
subversive.”
What merely seems eccentric today may be called
subversive tomorrow. And what is merely subversive today may
become unforgivable tomorrow.
The “pursuit of happiness” that our founders 15 felt important
enough to call an inalienable right in The Declaration of
Independence is now viewed as evil by the majority of Americans.
Of course, if you sat most of Americans down and said, “Do you
believe in the pursuit of happiness?” they’d nod their empty heads
until the sound of the spare change rattling around in their skulls
gave you a migraine—yet, those who truly pursue happiness are
cast in a villainous light. The enterprising young businessman in
the slums who tries to make money selling drugs that the US
government doesn’t approve of will find himself crushed beneath
15 Apologies to non-American readers.
police truncheons because, as Chris Rock so astutely pointed out,
“Only the white man is allowed to profit from other people’s pain.”
I would substitute the word “normal” instead of the “white” but
otherwise have no qualms with his statement.
The pursuit of happiness cannot only be for the rich, the
well-connected or those willing to sell their souls for table scraps
from the big corporate banquet. If happiness is to truly be an
inalienable right than laws must only be passed and enforced
when the cost of one man’s happiness is the destruction of
another man’s will. The drug dealer peddles his wares to drug
users who have a choice—they can choose to take drugs or not to
take drugs. The murderer’s victims have no choice—which is why
murder must remain illegal. The murderer’s right to the pursuit
of happiness must be alienable to safeguard to inalienable rights
of others.
This does not, however, make the urges of a murderer
evil—they’re simply not pragmatic. If the murder finds a