Everything You Always Wanted to Know About America (But Were Afraid to Ask)
Things have become quite awkward today for Americans inclined to inquire freely into issues of moral and politico-economic propriety, or historical justice. Even asking the wrong question, apart from leaning toward any particular answer, can place one at risk of public “cancellation,” unemployment, or being lambasted by a late-night television comedian.
As a public service of sorts, then, let us take a few moments to clear up a few of those touchy questions that might still have some older or more naïve Americans scratching their heads in confusion at all the vital and exciting changes revolutionizing their socially-distanced society as we speak. Consider the following brief but straightforward information as “Everything you always wanted to know about America post-2020, but were understandably afraid to ask.”
Q: Did anything happen in America during the nineteenth century beyond slavery and systemic oppression?
A: No — there was only slavery, the oppression of women and natives, and white males sitting around at night comparing how much money they had made from the slave trade, how many natives they had rounded up, and how well they had beaten their womenfolk.
Q: Is it true that the United States was founded entirely on principles of greed and racism, by a band of greedy white male racists?
A: Of course.
Q: Did Thomas Jefferson understand and hide the fact that communist egalitarianism is the only just economic system, or did he simply fail to understand this?
A: Well, the universal communist enlightenment really only picked up steam in the mid-nineteenth century, after Jefferson was dead, but since, when it comes to addressing the legacy of the U.S. founding fathers, it is always advisable to err on the side of assuming they were as evil as possible, it is now acceptable, and by 2028 will be mandatory in all public schools, to believe that Jefferson knew very well that communism was the most just politico-economic arrangement, but that he — along with Washington, Madison, and the rest of the white male capitalist slave-owners — deliberately and maliciously hid this knowledge from the People, because he was Satanic.
Q: Is every person from the past who held views we now regard as unacceptable always and completely reducible to nothing but those unacceptable views? I mean, is every such man merely the sum total of everything he ever did wrong, said wrong, or thought wrong?
A: Yes, because we now know that purity of collectivist egalitarian thought and deed (as adjusted each year at the Progressive Truth Festival in Portland, Oregon) is the only standard of morality. Hence, anyone who, being white and male, failed to meet the standard of moral purity defined as we have just defined it, must be regarded as nothing but the sum total of his impurities. To regard him in any other light would be to overlook, or perhaps even to condone, such impurities — as though suggesting that a racist oppressor’s existence could somehow be vindicated or justified on balance. There is no room for such moral wishy-washiness in the purified anti-fascist state. Imperfection is evil, and must be condemned outright and unequivocally, in the name of sustaining the proper spirit of social justice among the People.
Q: Does this purity of moral condemnation with regard to the capitalist oppressors of Pre-Just America also carry over to people of today who cite any of those oppressors’ statements or deeds in a favorable light?
A: Yes, of course. Since the great anti-fascist public statue purge of 2020, it has been generally understood that anyone today who invokes the names, accomplishments, or attitudes of Pre-Just American leaders or intellectuals independently of the fascist, racist, sexist, systemically-oppressive associations that the mention of those figures ought to entail, must be assessed by a tribunal of his peers on social media to determine whether he is merely suffering from acute false consciousness, and hence in need of public shaming and mandatory remedial education, or is actually mired in fascist-era moral premises regarding the fallibility and imperfectability of humans. If the latter is judged to be the case, which means the accused is guilty of historical de-revisionism — such as by seeking to forgive the evils of the old fascists in the name of preserving their so-called “positive accomplishments,” or even of implying that today’s progressive orthodoxy may not be the absolute and unquestionable truth — then the tribunal will normally recommend permanent public ostracism, the restriction of employment and banking privileges, and the denial of basic government services such as healthcare and access to other citizens for purposes of social interaction.
Now you know. I am quite sure I have not exaggerated a single ascendant attitude in the foregoing Q & A. If anything, I have been a little generous in understating the current methods and intentions.