I’ve written before about my experiences with forced multiculturalism and how they made me into the person I am today. For some reason, lately, I seem to be attracting the attention of white-pride/Christian-pride sorts of persons, and otherwise being introduced to both positive and negative aspects of this phenomenon in terms of their feelings about me. Some seem to believe that I am one of them and others seem to believe that I am their enemy. Neither view is correct. I support the notions of “freedom of association,” and “freedom from association,” and am not qualified to make these sorts of decisions for another person—only for myself.
I’m going to relay here a story about my past that may perhaps shed light on the sort of person I am. I have relayed it privately before. Since it is my story, however, I own it and shall reproduce it here:
I was on a date with a television producer. We stopped to pick up another couple–a young man in the music business who lived in a brand new mansion followed by his date on the other side of town who wore a giraffe-print fun fur, front-zip jumpsuit and had a body that could stop traffic. I was probably wearing a nondescript little black dress with a nondescript but well-tailored all-season black jacket because that was my usual uniform.
We went to a restaurant in Brentwood I believe that did not have a sign outside. We walked through the restaurant to a private room. Inside were a group of men (12 maybe) in business suits. There were no prices on the menu handed me.
My date, loudly, asked me, “So, what is your opinion of the Mafia?” It was not the first time the gentleman had asked me the question during our brief association. Everyone stopped talking.
I said, “I don’t hold them to a different standard than I do corporate America.”
Everyone roared with laughter. Another bottle of Cristal was produced largely for benefit of the same bodacious lady next to me who I believe had gulped down most of the previous. After only a glass of it, however, our dates took us outside and we talked while the men smoked cigars. Then we all went back inside and had an Italian dinner beyond description.
My date didn’t get a goodnight kiss and that’s the last I saw of him. Thus ended my short-lived aspiration at being a television script reader. I have no regrets however because today I do not watch television except for occasional streaming and I would have to live with the pain of supporting yet another degraded enterprise.
The point I would like to make with this story is that nepotism and cronyism are not going to go away any time soon. I’m not opposed to it for in fact depending on the state to make one’s decisions as to whom to associate with and whom not to associate with implies that the state actually cares about its citizens. Personally, I will associate with any person I like or remove association with them for any reason unless a person who cares about me requests otherwise. I have even entertained extremely restrictive rules of association for I understand the circumstances under which such a restriction may be necessary and at other times wholly submit to certain authorities—one in particular.
On the other hand, I have had rich and informative experiences with persons who are our Western versions of “untouchables.” I might take extraordinary precautions with certain of these individuals but I will not submit to an ideology or authority which does not care about me in terms of restricting those associations. If the reader’s mind is racing at this moment wondering what sort of “untouchable” I am referring, please forgive my coy refusal to elaborate for it is my experience that naming this sort of person, tends to conjure him.
I find nepotism and cronyism to be far more enduring among humanity and other creatures than either feminism or racism or even Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. We shall always have stronger positive feelings toward those who we find to be familiar. It is easier to tell if someone from a similar background as our own is lying, for instance, and thereby a betrayal on that level is more devastating than betrayal by a relative exotic. Taking a chance in trusting someone who is outside of our sphere of experience or influence is a courageous act. However, making such a thing mandatory by law is obscene as it puts particular pressure on the most vulnerable members of society. The persons who have the strongest motivation to protect the most vulnerable members of society are those persons who care about them, love them, and have a personal and material investment in their happiness.
In some cases, such persons are members of the same class. In some cases, such persons are members of the same race. In some cases, such persons are members of the same sex or gender. Perhaps they come from the same hometown or enjoy the same food. Perhaps they have secrets in common that make them each vulnerable to each other such as to ensure loyalty. Perhaps they have known each other for a long time. Perhaps there is an emotional component to their connection. Perhaps they perceive areas of commonality which are merely illusory. In some cases, however, such persons are courageous social outliers or persons not belonging to anything familiar except maybe rhetoric, etiquette, smell, or even perhaps that which is not perceivable by our senses. In some cases, such persons might not even be persons.
I am a person and a woman and use my own photo with deliberate distortions to assist my ability to move about the real world with anonymity. I don’t have any particular identification with my own genes except when I explore backward in time and find personalities of my phenotype which resonate with me. Can I be trusted? I can’t answer that question. The reader can only answer that question for his or herself. Meeting me however requires mutual trust for there would be mutual risk. Persons who desire to throw rhetorical barbs in my direction who do not have the courage to actually come to Los Angeles to meet me do not have a great impact upon my life. The fact is, I will not limit my own associations based on any sort of ideological criteria because my “religion” is my own and it is a work in progress. Rather, I make snap judgments on terms of the persons I wish to associate with and do not bother to explain or justify them to ideological bigots. This approach to life has not made me rich materially, for in fact, I’m a lousy prostitute, which, should not be considered evidence of my feelings toward prostitutes of whom some have been my friends. Meanwhile, the slightest threat to me in terms of my person or income with regard to my thoughts causes in me an allergic reaction. If my actions do not inspire trust in a person, then I do not trust that person. I expect to be tested and similarly reserve the right to test before I trust a person. The tests that one person uses are not adequate for another person’s purposes for they are in fact irrational tests brought about by life experience, which is unique.
Meanwhile, for purposes of both survival and advancement throughout life, we need to be able to make alliances with persons who share our values. The extent of such an alliance may be “business only,” “personal,” or “sexual.” We all have different criteria as to who shall be admitted into these sorts of alliances, and what shall take place within them. Certain ideologies hold themselves as the de facto moral standard of these values and some are quite punitive against anyone who is disloyal to the ideology.
Punishment might include violence.
So, as a person without much in the way of “family,” or “culture,” or even “hometown,” what exactly are my values? Well, if you read my writing, you’re probably going to get a pretty good idea of them. As for whether I will submit myself to the interrogation of ideological authorities who perhaps wish to impose their values on me? The answer is: Only at my pleasure and probably not on the first date.