Thursday, December 17, 2009

The Economy, And Feeling Good About Feeling Bad

I've just been reading this post from Ariaka's blog, Uganda Survives World Economic Downturn.
But if it is a world economic downturn, how is it that Uganda survives? Aren't we part of the World? Well, yes and no. (By the way, read Ariaka's blog. Occassional, but worth it.)
I'm going to have a ball laughing at these peple who get off on seeing the negative in the past, present, and future of Uganda (and Africa in general), but never the positive. They also like to see the positive elsewhere (USA, the West, or, for Kampala's current élite, Rwanda), and never any negatives there. If there are negatives, that's because nobody survives them.
(It's an old and boring trick: express dismay at how bad things are around you, so that you may seem to be so much better than these things are—than you actually are.)

In the beginning of the year, the Ministry of Finance announced that the expected economic growth of Uganda would be 6% for the financial year that was then in the middle. Why? Because there was this “Global” economic crisis.

At the end of that financial year, six months later, the growth rate was actually 7%. Pessimism had been shown to be wrong.

Now, that may have been calculated pessimism; or what we call “conservative estimates”. But there were too many other people calling it a global economic collapse. And I'll dance on their heads now. Is it really that hard to see that Uganda has a reported economic growth of over 7% for more than ten years straight (and the real rate may be in double numbers, because a huge number of transactions are beyond the books), and therefore that Uganda's growth is not tied to America's? (America hasn't had more than 3% since anybody reading this was born, and has been going in the negatives, if the way of measuring had remained consistent.)

You see, when America gets irresponsible with her economy, and it blows up in her face, she says it is global, because, for Americans, the World is America. But the truth is that when America steps aside, there is always us to take up the space. By the way, I'm reading Crash Proof by Peter Schiff, and it was like the most-vocal prophetic book talking about the economy. Nothing in there flatters the American economy of today. Of their fathers and their fathers' fathers, yes: those people produced, lived below their means, invested wisely. But this generation! (Or use this one, easier on your computer.) It also explains how they keep their GDP growth numbers running high, high, high (all of 1.5%) in spite of the real growth being negative. I feel sorry for the generation that will have to pay for this foolishness. Who has space for so many refugees in that weight category?

So, first of all, it was not a “global” economic collapse, because America is not the whole globe. Okay? It was not a global economic collapse (there can't be such a thing, by the way—gold doesn't vanish when you are foolish with it; it just goes to someone else).

Second of all, Uganda has always stood, and will always stand, to gain from such a collapse of those other economies, for a variety of reasons. Uganda is basically a king-in-waiting. What we frogspeak people call le prince heritié. A land endowed with gifts from the hand of God Himself, with more than 50% of the population under 15 years old, with people who have the resourcefulness of angels, with men whose hands are eager and able to work, with women of high resourcefulness and beauty, with the rich and extremely vigorous mixture of Nilotic and Bantu blood within one country, and the raw, untamed Grace of God covering this Blessed Land in its entirety. Rise, ye mighty people!

When I saw people talking of an economic downturn, and calling it global, I just chuckled a bit and got working. The money is only now starting to flow. When the Chinese want a new place to put the money they've generated selling to their obese counterparts in the West, they'll be coming here. Better to get ready, no? Well, we try. So help me, God.
Was there an economic downturn here? Did anyone say so? And did things get better for Uganda? Or worse?

See the pessimism here.
See the part where Andrew Mwenda mentions the impact on Uganda in this article. Incidentally, Mwenda thinks the rescue efforts are good. But they are the problem. If you don't understand that, or you don't understand why that is the case, I urge you again: read Peter Schiff. If you can't buy the book, go here and read his entries as far back as you can:
Then this mentions the (goes without saying, Americentric, racial-determinist) index that said that Africans were destined to suffer more from the “global” economic downturn. The index is from the IMF, of course.
Here, someone from The Independent writes that “Uganda Won't Escape Global Crisis”. Of course, all this is because the current élite like pessimism and judging Uganda/Africa as a failure, because it makes them feel better about themselves, and helps them get laid quicker and more-often.

And in the end? Uganda's investments spiked upwards. If you want to know how that works, here's the short of it: when a non-producing giant eats a lot, the producing midgets—like Uganda—make much and eat little. When the giant doesn't eat, we eat. Now, you should all prepare for when the giant goes off the island. Work, work, work. Invest. Save resources (capital, labour, land). Get ready for it. Nothing lasts for ever, for better or for worse. That show is over, now ours begins.

Labels: ,

Friday, December 4, 2009

We Are All Homosexuals Now‽

I use the interrobang in the heading of this post to use both the question mark and the exclamation mark at once. That is its purpose, after all. We are all homosexuals now‽

Now, I'd like to ask a question: how many of you would hear something coming from human rights defenders, if we said that spitting on the roadside should be made illegal, and that “aggravated roadside-spitting” should be punishable by death? Maybe we'd hear nothing.
But if we heard anything, it would be “spitting on the roadside is a human right!”, but is it?

In short: in as far as human rights allow us to do anything we please, then some (perhaps most) human rights must be suppressed. (Here, a bit of narcissism is in order.)

I bring this up in light of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, upon which I've dwelt before here recently (and in the comments of the follow-up post that GUG made). This is not to equate homosexuality with spitting by the road-side; I just got an example that suffices for my purposes. (That I have to use this disclaimer all the time is a good indicator of how powerful the denouncers have become. If I didn't put it there, I'd quickly be covered with claims that I hate homosexuals, and I called them “evil, vile, live road-spitters” and so on.) This particular post is also agnostic about whether spitting on the road-side and/or homosexuality, among other practices, are human rights.

Anyway, now that I have finished that preamble, I have three points to make. As is my style, that doesn't mean that I'll make much sense. But we all try, don't we?

First of all, as I explain in the comments here, I think that just as the homosexuals can say that they are being oppressed, so can the homosexual-haters. This trope has been used from time immemorial to seal off a group into a situation where it can be oppressed with impunity. You can bet that only a few witches would have been burnt, if people hadn't thought that the witches were oppressing them. Yet we now see that episode as a witch holocaust of oppression—they saw it as a victory over their oppressors.
This trope works well enough to have been repeated all the time, from Jews in Europe to African slaves in America. If it worked for Hitler, it should work for us. (Disclaimer: that's a joke that notes a trend, for all you on-edge people who get so excited at a chance to be offended. A persecution complex is where you persecute yourself. Stop it.)

Second, in the same comments I say that if, as it always was, homosexuals just exist, rather than march bare-chest on the streets in ridiculous clothing, there would be less impetus among non-homosexuals to have them killed. (This ties in with point one: the marching can be construed validly as oppression. Not that there would be zero homophobes, of course, since even baby-killers exist, and babies don't march.) I don't support being in people's faces about who you fuck—if I did the same, I'd never stop marching!
(Another disclaimer to the Homosexual Anti-Defamation League: This isn't limited to homosexuals; I am also against people marching about their favourite drink in ridiculous clothing, where the clothing appears.) Each one of us has a habit that, if he/she marched half-dressed down the road singing about it, most otherwise-good people would want him/her killed dead.
And, whether we like the sound of it or not, it is true: homosexuals and people who eat taboo things are supposed to be mild, at most, about their particular inclinations. (Disclaimer to booger-eaters and mainly to homosexuals: I'm not equating your two groups, just drawing a comparison between two things that are done by a few, and reflexively scoffed at by most others.)

Third and most important, the reason for the post. I have stated this point elsewhere, and here it is again.
Even if you find homosexuality repugnant, you should oppose this attempt to create too much punitive power over the issue.
The reason is, in short, because anyone can claim that you are a homosexual. After all, what does it take to arrest a homosexual? Merely a claim by someone that he is. And so, we are all at risk. If there is anything to learn from the recent spate of preachers using this denouncement—“Homosexual!”—to tackle rivals, it is that the tool is going to be grabbed and wielded by the most-dangerous, people we have among us: Pharisees. Who needs a gun, when one accusation can get the job done? You'll be surprised how far people can go with such power in their hands.

So, oppose the bill, because otherwise I'll get you jailed with much ease. I will. Just you let the Bill pass and you will see.
(But I still maintain that, for as long as this is not purely a local consideration, and there are all these imperialists telling us what to do, then support the bill as a duty to your freedom. No, things aren't quite so black-or-white.)

Labels: , ,

'Foreign', 'Western' Homosexuality

Now that the Kampalan is back to being used, hey, I jump from my usual, to here, to spend a little bit of my ire.

Yeah, I have come because 27th dared to post, (after prodding from me), to attack the anti-homosexual bill.
Maybe, I should be grateful that he posted. Maybe.

But, why don’t I feel grateful?

27th, I know I am bitter, angry, and lashing out. But, you have been hanging around me for long enough to at least know some truths. And, since my country has a law in parliament, to kill and imprison those of us citizens who are like me, I simply gave up the need to moderate my language. Prepare for some Straight Talk.

Why do you consider that my sexuality foreign?

Why do you, and most fellow Ugandans, believe in this myth of the foreigness of homosexuality?
I consider 27th to be fairly well read. That is a compliment, brother. Not a put down. But, with intelligence comes responsibility. Why do you make statements like this,
 “For the rest, who oppose homosexuality as a way to oppose Western hegemony, I am in full support.”

The rest of the paragraph does no favors to your claim to intelligence. I am not very sure whether you actually believe the communist bullshit. It has been out of fashion for such a long time that, I doubt you really believe it. If you do, well, we all have a right to stupidity.

But, I do know you believe in your heart that my sexuality, homosexuality, is part of the push for ‘Western Hegemony’ blah, blah, blah.
You know, you make me feel like I am not African, like I am not a Ugandan. Have to actually pinch myself. Oh, yesterday, on ‘On the Spot’ (NTV), I saw that ignorant Dr Chris B-something (MP and on the Parliament committee for Health), state that homosexuality is un-African, and un-Ugandan. When challenged, he said he was speaking not as a doctor, but, as a Ugandan. It seems as if, being Ugandan is licence to stupidity on all things homosexual. Good god in heaven!

Oh, thank you very much.

So, dear heterosexual Ugandans, where does this leave us the homosexual, gay minority? We cannot have our seat at the table. Because we are gay. We cannot talk about our sexuality, because it is un-African. We cannot defend the lies of ‘recruitment’ and ‘defilement’ that you tell about us. Because we are gay, and thus when we present the truth, we MUST be spreading homosexuality. Matter of fact, the Bahati bill is out to block all free speech, which, by definition, is spreading homosexuality. In the name of, well, stopping the spread of homosexuality.

27th, there is this concept that the ‘hugely, humongously bad ‘West’, is forcing homosexuality down your pure Ugandan, African throat. Where does that leave me?

Oh, I know you are not alone. Yesterday, I had a conversation with a brother of mine. He was shocked to know that I first felt sexually attracted to other males when I was just past puberty. In my teens of course. He couldn’t believe that I had not got this ‘sickness’ from somewhere outside Uganda. I must have got it from a foreigner.

What kind of rubbish do you people think in your uncritical heads?

Ok. A bit of education, 27th. Here are a few facts.

Us homosexuals exist all over the world. We are few, a real minority. About 2-5% of human populations. ALL human populations, even African Ugandan. Homosexuality has been documented in literally ALL animal species. Homosexual Ugandans are a fact. They didn’t get their sexuality from outside. And, you sneering heterosexuals are ignorant of them, and in your deep ignorance, you hurt us with statements like the ‘West’ is forcing you to accept homosexuality.

For heavens sake, take a little time to read your history.

Nazi Germany put gay people in Concentration Camps. 19th Century Holland used to have gay pogroms. That means that there were riots when suspected gay people were hauled out and summary mob justice administered. They were killed, because they were suspected of being homosexuals. As recently as this year, Gordon Brown was giving a tepid apology to British homosexuals who were castrated, medically and surgically, in a bid to rid them of their sexuality. Alan Turing, ‘Father of Computers’ was one of them. He killed himself, after being forced to go on medical castration treatment. Because he was a homosexual. All his gifts to his country were discounted, because of his sexuality.

Open your eyes, Ugandans. Stop blaming MY sexuality on an enemy that is a myth of YOUR mind. Stop acting like you are nincompoops. Stop NOT thinking. Use a few bits of your brain cells.

I listen with incredulity at the lies that Ssempa tells. Why does he have this impunity? Because you listen, and think it is truth, because he is talking about homosexuals. Who, of course are bad, western influenced, and all sorts of nonsense.

Hey, guys, especially you bloggers, where the hell do you put your brain function when the discussion turns to ‘homosexuality’

Huff, puff, huff, puff….!

Breath in…. Breath out….!

A diatribe. But, forgive me, fellow Ugandans,


The excuse that homosexuality is an emotive subject quickly wears thin. What I am talking about is YOUR LOGICAL REASONING CAPACITY. Why does it work for other things, but never for things that are connected with MY sexuality?


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Comparative Recounts, and Why Christians Hate Homosexuals

By now, of course, it is old news to mention the Anti-Homosexuality Bill being pushed by some Members of Parliament. The bill would, if passed, make it very dangerous to be a homosexual in Uganda. This post has a heavy religious theme, because that is the colour of the debate at the moment. If you are a Christian, you're advised to look away now and go on your merry way.
I shall discuss why Christians hate homosexuals (hint: it's the DNA), and a few other things. See also. See also.

In this post, I will not dwell on those who oppose the Anti-Homosexuality Bill on grounds other than claimed Christian morality.
For the rest, who oppose homosexuality as a way to oppose Western hegemony, I am in full support. Yes. Indeed, I'd support a ban on reproduction if it were to be pushed by the Western imperialistic fascists. As a general rule of thumb, the West wants for us not what makes us strong and resolute, but what makes us weak and unstable. So, if they support it, oppose it a priori. Only after your suspicion is falsified can you, in good conscience, be in agreement about anything at all with these killers of our mothers.

Yet since this isn't my blog, I will dwell no longer on those who, like our President, oppose homosexuality in as far as it is a limb for Western manipulation, hegemony, uniformisation, do-as-I-say-ism, and bullying.
But if you claim that you support the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, in its full extent, because it disagrees with your Christian morals, I have something to say to you and about you. The rest can leave now.

Check out these three verses, if you will. Matthew 9:10-13, Mark 2:15-17, and Luke 5:29-32. They are helpfully arrayed side-by-side here.
By the way, it is bits like these amongst the gospels, recounting as they do a single event, that let us know that the gospels are, in fact, very accurate. When lawyers want to establish that many “witnesses” are telling the truth about a single event, they look for cases, such as these, where the witnesses vary on the fine points but not on the general picture: this is proof that there was no collusion to make up a similar story, but also that the event did, in fact, happen.

Now, the main point of this episode is that Jesus was hanging out with sinners. Of course, everybody is a sinner, including those who were exclaiming about this. But we also know very well that this is understood by those who, today, want the sinners killed. Back then, just as today, some sinners are more sinners than others, in the eyes of those self-righteous Pharisees, whose seed walks amongst us even today. They didn't mean “Jesus eats with people who aren't perfect!” That charge was valid of everybody. Instead, they meant “Jesus eats with people who are perverts!”

So, you, dear Christian, do you know that being a Christian is made up of being Christ-like? I can bet that, since you support this Bill, you are certainly free of this charge. You are many things—even moral—but you're certainly not being Christ-like. If you were, you'd be like the priests and reverends we denounce for communing with these sinners. (And if you are moral, even though not Christ-like, read on.)

I do not want to imply that homosexuality isn't a sin, according to Christian teaching, or that it shouldn't be considered a sin. Indeed, the whole thesis I present here breaks down if it isn't. Homosexuality is a sin. My incessant using of the word “fuck” is also a sin. Nobody should be proud of his failings, but to not acknowledge them as sin is yet worse than even being proud of them. I'm saying: better a city covered in irritating, stupid, decadent homosexuals marching in a gay parade, knowing that they are sinning against God, than a city where a single Pharisee passes for a follower of Christ of Nazareth!
Homosexuality is a sin. But so is Phariseeism. Indeed, I like how this parable is introduced by Luke, in chapter 18, verses 9 to 14 of the gospel that bears his name:
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable [...]
So, yes, homosexuality is a sin. It will always be. And for as long as it is, so is Phariseeism.

Now, I have something else to say to these very moral Christian friends of mine. You see, I'm not a Christian and I will never be one. You know why? Because Christians are the one group under the Sun who are most-opposed to the beautiful, liberating, good news of Jesus of Nazareth. Having replaced the Pharisees (see above), they have proceeded to, throughout the times, continually crucify Jesus, over and over again, just as they did when he was their archenemy and they his. (They tasted the Grace of God, which gives pardon not because we are good and sufficient, but because the sacrifice was good and sufficient yet return again to the self-righteousness where our righteousness is because of our works, totally disregarding the whole point of the high price paid, akin to some fucker I paid a bill for last week at Nando's and then he went on to pay it again, making me short of Shs. 7,000 for absolutely no fucking reason. If Jesus needed a greatest possible enemy, the Christians are that enemy.)

Ugandan homosexuals: take heart. You are ultimately of Jesus, if only because you're not Pharisees. You will have been forgiven much, and you'll love much. And amongst you, Uganda's most-hated sinners, will be shown unlimited patience as an example to the rest of us.

I am using the rest of this post as an excuse to develop a theme that it would be wrong to leave hanging. You can stop here if you are disgusted enough already.
So, you want a law to tame the raging out-of-control sin of homosexuality? Well, I'll leave our constitutional law and talk about the Biblical Law, because after all, it is the one that originally inspired what you are doing now. Here, have a couple of verses from the great Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, chapter 5, verses 20 and 21. The law increases sin. It doesn't decrease it, and it certainly doesn't give righteousness (read all of Romans 5, if you read nothing else today). The Law was given to give life to sin, which lies dead without a law. So the law gives life to sin. Legalism, your fuel, O self-righteous Pharisee, is also your condemnation.

You have the fire to condemn these sinners, homosexuals in this case, because you think yourself righteous. And if you considered yourself righteous for the right reasons, you would know that your being good or bad has no bearing on whether or not you are justified. With that knowledge, you'd be more-likely to give the homosexuals love rather than hate. You can know that you are of your father the Hater and Accuser because that is what you do (genetics, yay!) and you haven't love. Those who know that they are justified, not because of them, but because of love (that is, the love of God for us, even while we were still God-haters!) will have the love of fellow humans as a fruit of this profound-yet-simple realisation. If you do not love your brotherman, you are not of God. (Loving doesn't qualify you to be of God—that is covered elsewhere—loving shows that you have realised the profound love in the Grace of God, and it leaks forth from you. He who has been forgiven much loves much. Grace, then love.) Read all of 1 John 4, if that kind of thing rocks your boat.

So, if you considered yourselves righteous for the right reasons—the Grace—you'd not hate. You would love. But you consider yourselves righteous because you act and live by the Law, obeying it fastidiously. And in so doing, you think you're righteous. Boy, do I have some really, really terrible news for you!
Faith in the Grace of God—which you believe, not see, unlike your works of the Law— is the only justification there is in Jesus. Just merely living by the Law is the problem. As you no doubt know, the just (that is, the justified, the made-righteous) shall live by Faith.

You obey the Law and want to stone us. You have lost even the modesty of the Pharisees who came before you and now you do pick the first stone and throw it!
Shame on you! See Matthew 7:1-5 and see a picture of yourselves, you Christians! Now go on to verse 15 to 23, and see another picture of yourselves—and your fate. I never knew you. Away from me, you evil-doers! You know, you'll not be evil-doers because you were worse than the homosexuals. We are all bad. You'll be evil-doers because your works will have failed to justify you.

And there is a bunch of homosexuals reading this and thinking Well, I know it is a sin. Unlike other people over there, I do not pretend that just because I (like to) do something that makes it a good thing to do. But I just can't help myself! I know the good I should do, but the evil is always right here with me, at my groin, driving me to sin! My urges are stronger than I am! What the heck can I do?
Boy, do I have some really, really liberating news for you!

I know everybody will be surprised who ends up judged righteous. That depraved sinners who are not known for good works shall be deemed righteous, as the hymn goes? (Luganda: Tewali munsi muno mulongoofu, songa tewaliba muggulu.) How is that? Abraham believed, and was judged righteous. He only did (works, viz. circumcision) long after he was judged righteous. How is that?
A friend has just sent me this, so I believe it belongs here as the answer: through the righteousness that comes by faith. Heck, read all of Romans 4 as well.

Labels: , ,