Wetigo: A Disease of the Soul

Here's a good vid.

I hope that works. I had a lot of trouble posting that here. Plundering the resources of today to wage war will make democracy the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. Eisenhower saw it. I've written about it here before. The natives of North America all saw it long ago. The more I read about them, the more I think they had it all figured out before the Europeans came over and fucked it up. How'd they do that? With whiskey? Small Pox infected blankets? Christianity? Nope. They have done it with WETIGO. Wetigo is a disease of the soul that transforms ordinary people into what the natives called "windigos." A windigo, a cannibal or a soul eater, consumes his/her own soul and the souls of others around him/her with greed. The natives who first met the Europeans were shocked at their obsession with private property and their inability to share. The natives shared everything for the good of the community. Dogsleds, canoes, food, water, husbands and wives... yes that last one is a surprise to many. But just think of the institution of marriage and try to separate yourself from all the years of relatives, friends, teachers, commercials, TV and movies, music, consumerism, books etc, etc, that have pounded the virtues of marriage into our heads practically from birth, and question it. Isn't it just owning another human being? Isn't the marriage licence just a deed of ownership? And can you imagine how barbaric that must have appeared to cultures that don't reward greed and obsess about how much stuff they own?

We often talk about how Europeans brought disease to North America and it killed a lot of the natives. It has been hyperbolically called the first germ warfare. But the disease that really wiped out their superior cultures was wetigo, the greed of the white man. I still suffer from it. I watch Seinfeld and see Kramer or George come in and just go to Jerry's fridge and grab a piece of fruit or a chicken leg without asking. Jerry doesn't mind! He never says anything! I WISH I could be like that!

And our ancestors were quite a bunch! We can only imagine what it was like for them to come to a place where everything was shared. Just help yourself. No REALLY! Just take what you need. That's where the problem probably arose. They started taking everything they wanted, not everything they needed. Anybody know who Billy Ray Valentine is? In the movie Trading Places, Eddie Murphy plays a street person named Billy Ray Valentine who gets taken off the streets and given a big time home and career as part of an experiment the two old brothers were conducting. Here's the scene in which they try to explain to him that they are giving him a beautiful new home.

That's GOT to be how it was for the European explorers who found the natives. "So I can just take this sled dog here. It's MINE. And then just eat some of that meat you're cooking up there. Cuz it's MINE. And then I can just go over here and play hide the salami with your daughter cuz she's MINE." Did I go too far with the last one? Oh I think not! I read a book about the early years of the Hudson Bay Company in Canada. The very first Canadian company I think. And there was a story about the explorer Martin Frobisher who visited the northern part of Canada and met with Inuit people. It boggled my mind when I read that he dangled a bell over the edge of his ship to attract an Inuit in a kayak. When one approached, he was hoisted onboard, brought back to England and given to Queen Elizabeth as a gift. Kayak and all! The story was that he was allowed to hunt swan on the Avon river in his kayak. But he didn't live long. He died, of all things, from a cold.

But just like the natives, the Inuit shared with the English. They just couldn't relate to their insatiable appetites for resources. Many of the tribes were so plundered by our selfish ancestors that there was little remaining for the long, harsh winter after they went back to Europe. Lots of people died. Entire communities were wiped out. Then, in the spring, when the Europeans went back to get some more loot free of charge from the foolish natives, they were met with what even back then they probably called, "totally unprovoked aggression and terrorism." You see "cowboy and Indian" movies and the "good" guys always talk of their savagery and bloodlust. Much like people who oppose the U.S. are characterized today. But again, question. Look at it from the other side. What would YOU have done? In either position. If you were a native, would you keep on "trading" with these selfish, diseased pillagers? If you were the Europeans getting all kinds of loot for free, becoming rich by victimizing what you consider savages far beneath you, wouldn't you distract from the truth a bit?

Speaking of distracting from the truth, the Westminster, London terrorist attack. 5 dead including the perp, Khalid Masood. A very Muslim sounding name, but he was actually Adrian Russel Elms. I doubt many people will remember that name as well as Khalid Masood. It's almost formulaic now isn't it? You see an event like this and you get the usual week of TV coverage and speculation about motive. Nobody yet can make any solid connections between this guy and ISIL. He was actually an ESL teacher and for a while taught in Saudi Arabia. Maybe he converted to Islam because he liked the religion and the people, not so he could destroy decadent westerners. But for now, the world will assume the latter.

Every time I hear one of these stories and see the overwhelming outpour of international mourning and support and the non-stop media coverage, I wonder if there isn't something bigger we are all being distracted from. Like, for instance, the fact that in the month of March, American air strikes and raids in Iraq and Syria have accounted for as many as 400 civilian deaths. That according to Airwars, a UK based organization that monitors international strikes on ISIL. Mostly in the city of Mosul where ISIL forces use civilians as human shields. They have been holding innocent women and children in the city so that any attacks will result in civilian deaths. You want to kill ISIL, you kill civilians too. I can just hear Trump now privately commenting, (awww hell, he could say it publically, it would probably GAIN him popularity!), "Well at least they're only MUSLIM casualties." We all know that Trump doesn't like Muslims. He did a very poor job of denying that his flight ban was a MUSLIM flight ban, because it was "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering America." He wants a Muslim database. He said he wants to send refugees like those from Syria back. He praised Saddam Hussein saying he killed terrorists, so good. He doesn't seem to make a distinction between Muslim and terrorist.

Judging 1.6 billion people on the actions of a few is just plain dangerous. This and other statements were made when 20 million Shia Muslims marched against, and despite ISIS. Trump didn't see the story watching Fox News though. Neither did a LOT of us.

What the world, and Trump, need to see is that ISIS or ISIL or whatever they want to call themselves, is just a small bunch of cunts. Most Muslims don't like them. Amping up the attack on them, as Trump has done, will just result in needless killing of their innocent human shields. And it will create justification for many, many more friends and family members of those slain by American attacks to join the terrorist organization. Making these deaths look less tragic by demonizing Islam, and trying to distract with stories of Muslims killing non-Muslims shouldn't work on educated people. It should make clear to us that the huge sorrow over 4 deaths in England compared to the relative anonymity of the 400 dead in Iraq are incongruent. We care more about the 4 than the 400 in the same way movies make us cheer for the bad guys. But this is real life. We see it on the screen and can easily be tricked into believing we're watching a movie. Donald Trump is Al Pacino in Scarface. "The only thing that gives orders is BALLS! And I have UUUGE balls!" But we always seem to forget as we respect and even idolize these guys with "balls" who go out and take their fortunes, they have to think like Tony Montana did. If you remember the part when he says he wants what's coming to him and his buddy asks what that is, he says, "The world. And everything in it." What kind of swelled head do you need to think that way? The same as someone who thinks he can take a PERSON from his home and give him as a GIFT to the queen. And it is a sickness to think you are THAT much better than anyone else.

So I ask you is the "balls" we love in so many of our rich and famous heroes respectable or is it a sickness? Does it take "balls" to crush others and rise to the top or is it just wetigo. If you steal all the free toilet paper at a Chinese tourist attraction washroom then sell it for one RMB a sheet to people desperate to relieve themselves, are you an entrepreneur or could any Joe Blow have thought of that? Maybe you have some mental condition that makes you think it was clever but really, you're the only asshole who will do such a disgustingly vile thing. Are Trump, Tony Montana, and all the billionaires out there who OWN more than we do, heroes or are they soul sucking, sociopathic cannibals greedily devouring us and the flesh of our children?

Here's how my country and the country where I'm working are viewing things.

The U.S. is a ridiculously rich country. Look at this vid! There ARE hungry people in the richest country in the world. If that's not astounding enough, there are ways of actually using coupons to MAKE money, not just save it. I found that to be the most shocking thing about this clip. If America used some of its riches to stop fighting some countries and start feeding its own, they wouldn't feel any weaker. In fact kindness, (if you can call NOT bombing people "kindness"), would make the extravagant military less necessary. So more and more money could be diverted. Soon feeding hungry people in OTHER countries would be possible. And the massive military spending would be further and further unnecessary. I'm not saying they should cut it. Keep a military for defence. It's necessary. But, come on, how insecure does a country need to be to have such an ostentatious military? How insecure does a president have to be? I dunno about you but I could see Trumpboy getting plastic surgery to lengthen his hands. Is it for similar reasons he is expanding the military?