| http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=61063&group=webcast
Why Hannibal Lecter Would Make a Better President than George W. Bush by Robert Anton Wilson Koan How do you handle your rage? -- Dr Lecter's last question to Clarice in The Silence of the Lambs [the book, not the movie] Parable The other night I dreamed of myself riding a crowded New York subway, standing and holding a handgrip. I got off at Avenue of the Americas and entered an office building. Suddenly I found myself not walking but in my current wheel-chair -- a dream leap of 40 years -- but still, as in my '20s, working at a job that profoundly bored me. A cheerful and friendly receptionist wheeled me to an executive with whom I had an appointment. Then I suddenly had a total memory lapse and could not remember why I had to see this man or even what I should say. With deep humiliation I realized that I had gotten lost in daydreams about the books I wanted to write and lost track of my "real" job. I felt, as I often did in my 20s, incompetent, "maladjusted," a born failure, Americanus nondesirabilis. Suddenly the executive turned into Hannibal Lecter and we sat drinking coffee and discussing literature in a Paris cafe. He wore the snappy Panama hat with an exquisite Armani suit that he had sported in Hannibal -- the movie, not the book. I told him that the writers I enjoy most [Swift, Twain, Bierce, Faulkner, Joyce, Pound, Chandler, Higgins] all contained a special flavor of satire that I could not precisely define even though I think it permeates my own books; "acid satire" hardly seemed satisfactory. "I think I have the word you need," Dr Lecter said genially. "Biting. You write biting satire." And he showed his small white teeth in a gentle smile. Thesis Everybody knows that the President of the United States at this time in history needs to have the personality and temperment of a serial killer. Of course, many people do not like to hear the matter stated so bluntly, and prefer euphemisms, but we all know that a modern president has to kill lots and lots of people, right? We all agree on that. And he can't hesitate or dillydally about it [Carter's Folly]; that shows "squeeky softness." [My use of "he" and "man" does not signify "unconscious sexism." An America with a woman president would have changed so much that no current generalizations could predict it.] According to the corporate media, which allows all shades of opinion from the far right to the middle-of-the road, America has vicious enemies on all continents [except maybe Antartica.] These enemies, driven by motiveless malignancy, want to destroy us and take all we own. Worse yet, except for Pearl Harbor in 1941 -- 70 years ago -- they have not had the raw courage to attack us on our own soil, so we have to go fight them in their own lands. Hence, by this analysis, our president must have no compunction about spilling blood; in short, like it or not, he must have the soul -- or soullessness -- of a serial killer. A rival "leftish" view, banned from the corporate media but widely available on Internet, holds that the world does not consist entirely of endless enemies, but does contain many, many peoples who want to get out from under the heel of the IMF, the World Bank and the multi-nationals. "Our" government, in this view, actually belongs not to us but to these giant money-cows, who finance the two major parties and ensure that no third party ever gets decent coverage in their media. The government then acts as Company Cop for the rich, suppressing all attempts at rebellion or national liberation etc. Thus, once again, via a dissenting ideology, we arrive at the conclusion that the president must think, feel and act like a serial killer. The only pragmatic [non-theoretical] issue that can divide us then remains only: what kind or flavor of serial killer do we want in the oval office? Or, even more pragmatically, what sort of serial killer can best represent the rich who pay campaign expenses? I think Hannibal Lecter, M.D. would satisfy me, and might even satisfy the owners and proprietors of USCorp, much better than George W. Bush. Do we want a bumbling amateur or a man who really has a talent as well as a relish for multiple homicide? I can see no room for debate here. The Lyin' Scion may have killed a hell of a lot more people than Hannibal, by a margin of about 200 to one, but he does it without flair or zest. Hannibal really puts his heart and soul into the work, and even adds a touch of surrealist humor at times. Consider also the other functions of the president. In the first place, since we like to pretend that we still have a democracy here, I assert that Dr. Lecter could win an election honestly, without any of the taint of felony that blemishes Shrub, who lost the popular vote and won by malodorous and questionable electoral votes in Florida. Dr. Lecter, by contrast, seems an honest box office smash, his latest film grossing $100,000,000 its first week alone. He obvously has more fans than His Fraudulency George II. Note also that Dr. Lecter speaks correct and even eloquent English [despite his Lithuanian birth] whereas Boy George babbles like an idiot. Who will command more respect from the educated peoples of the world? Again: at age 63 [born 1938], Hannibal looks and acts like the archetype of the Elder Statesman. W reminds most of us of Giggles the Clown. Hannibal has several languages -- French, Italian, Spanish, Lithuanian etc. -- whereas King George the Turd can barely speak English. Who could make livelier conversation with the leaders, ambassadors etc. of foreign nations? Who would make a better impression? It seems highly doubtful that Dead Brain Talking could discuss anything more complex than Fun With Dick and Jane. Dr Lecter can often recite the exact chemical formula for the neuro-psychological ailments of his patients; he can, and does, give a scholarly lecture -- in correct Tuscan --on the moral theology of Dante; he works part-time on a mathematical critique of Hawkins's attempted unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity; he has wide artistic interests and plays the harpsichord with a real feel for the music; etc. Since the wider the mental landscape, the more balanced the judgement, we could expect him to act more prudently than Bushware 2.0. Hannibal Lecter has already become a more civilizing influence on this barbaric nation than Our Encephalic Emperor. See for example http://mischanet.net/llf_main.html where Lecterphiles have begun to assemble on line all the art and music Hannibal especially cherishes. The epiphany of hordes of horror buffs suddenly and ardently turning on to high art and high culture might even indicate what Jung would call "a shift in the constellation of the archetypes." All our Resident Putz might offer along those lines would make a donkey weep and an owl laugh out loud. Dr Lecter also has a wonderful if somewhat fey sense of whimsey --a possible virtue in a world as mad as this. Witness his Jesus Christ wrist-watch -- just like a Mickey Mouse watch but even more in tune with compassionate conservatism. By contrast, President Beelzebush has as much wit as a box of kitty-litter. Of course, I must admit that Dr Lecter occasionally acts rashly. He has already eaten the frontal lobes of a candidate for Congress and might devour a few Senators if they seriously piss him off. Well, who needs frontal lobes in Congress, anyway? And we would certainly have a more rational government absent a few of the archeological specimens in the Senate... Of course, this whole issue of cannibalism remains problematical, and might seriously disturb those dubbed "effete intellectuals" by Spiro Agnew. Personally, I favor a cannibal president on both surrealist and realist grounds. As Rev. Jonathan Swift pointed out in his "Modest Proposal" over 200 years ago, cannibalism should pose no moral issue for those who tolerate imperialism, for if "we" [or some of us] devour the natural resources of a nation, why not devour its people also? Why consider it more ethical to let them die of filth, squalor and starvation? Swift's views appear echoed in both Pound's Cantos and Burroughs's Naked Lunch. Those who can't read should have a chance to grok fully what's on the end of that long TV fork before they swallow it. Accepting a cannibal president might qualify as the most educational experience in a hundred years or more. Besides, Dr Lecter always acts as a gourmet, not a gourmand; although Sir Anthony Hopkins has "put on some weight" as they say, the novels always describe Hannibal as "slim." At most, we might expect him to ingest a few Senators, as mentioned above, and maybe a couple of dozen head of bureaucrats. Well, perhaps a few TV evangelists too. None of this would ammount to a great loss, and the educational benefits in making American politics totally explicit still seem enormous to me. As it says in Mong-Tse, "Is there any difference between killing a man with a sword and killing him with a club? Is there any difference between killing him with a sword and killing him with a system of economics?" Dr Lecter as president would help make this ancient Oriental wisdom comprehensible to all. However, one question remains. Dr Lecter despises those who kill for money [he despises avarice in general]; would he blindly take orders and kill those the owners of America want killed? Just for a paycheck? I think this poses no real problem. They just have to let Hannibal pick the times for the bombings or invasions. His ironic humor would prevail and he would launch his wars at the hour the natives attend church. This would give him a load of new clippings for his famous scrapbook of horrible and gruesome things that happened to people at prayer. In that connection, I close with a story that would certainly have gotten into Dr Lecter's scrapbook if it had happened to a church. If you believe in "God" you may take it if you will as His comment on President Putsch, Dr Lecter and the current state of civilization in general: SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - The feces definitely hit the fan and every other part of a home in Utah. A shower of dung from an reportedly unknown source covered two sides of the home, the backyard and a hot tub. When similar blobs hit homes in Salt Lake County in spring 1999, homeowners blamed aircraft for dumping septic tanks in flight. But in this last incident, the mess was devoid of tell-tale blue chemicals used in plane's toilets, and officials from the Federal Aviation Administration maintain that aircraft do not have the ability to empty their tanks while flying. Source: News of the Bizarre |
