Robert Anton Wilson is a science-fiction writer and New Age pop philosopher who has written some interesting works, but this piece isn’t one of them. Since it’s a work of extreme idiocy, it practically screams "Fisk me!", and I’m never one to pass up a line-by-line intellectual bitchslapping:
"The Perils of Cocaine Abuse"
…usually involve gonzo New Age philosophizing…
Two recent political leaders allegedly had this nefarious habit.
Based on upon exceptionally dubious "evidence" in both cases.
Both came to power after dubious elections, by non-electorial and irregular methods.
One came to power under a procedure consistant with law, the other suspended the rules and went completely outside the law. One is subject to a system of rigorous checks and balances in policy decisions and can be democratically removed from office, while the other was a law unto himself.
Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.
One attack was staged, the other was certainly not.
Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.
In one case the ethnic minority that was blamed was actually responsible, and claimed responsibility for the attacks as they were being carried about.
Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.
Apparently being asked to take off your shoes and being hassled at an airport is synonymous with being shoved into a ghetto. Also, remember that in one of these cases that members of the accused minority actually did perpetrate the crime in question. In one case that minority was denied all rights, in another they recieved the pro-bono support of civil liberties groups.
Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."
One suspended basic civil liberties for all people through a completely arbitrary process. The other only suspended certain rights under a justifiable process placed under a system of judicial review. One system had a series of checks and balances that ensured that claims of inappropriate action would be investigated and flaws in the system fixed. The other acted in an entirely capricious manner.
Both put the citizenry under surveillance.
Yes, because in one of these cases the government would throw you in jail for speaking out against the government. In the other one would probably get a book deal and a favorable mention by certain prominent writers as well as starry-eyed talk show hosts saying how "brave" they were for their "couragous dissent" (even if their "dissent" was little more than slanderous and easily disproven allegations).
Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.
There’s a huge difference in having a system where key government officials have people who can take their place (who do not have any policymaking ability until their counterpart is killed) and a "secret government". In one of these cases, the government operates under rules that make it one of the most transparent in the world.
Both launched wars against most of the world.
One launched a war to expand their own national borders, and the other launched a war in which the countries that had lost would have their government and infrastructure rebuild at the winner’s expense and would then be left alone to operate as they wished. Furthermore, the last time I checked, "most of the world" would be a larger set that two countries.
One had a funny mustache. Can you name the other one?
Gee, could Mr. Wilson be trying to compare Hitler to George W. Bush?
Someone should arrest him for flagrant misuse of logic in breaking Godwin’s Law…