It’s been nine days since I saw her off, after walking her dog Leo one last time.
The folks in the department notice I’m not the same person I was last semester. I’ve started tucking my shirt in. I’m telling fewer jokes. I smile less.
A big part, I think, of why I struggled over the summer about her was because I didn’t have that many friends I could talk to about my emotions. That’s not to say I didn’t have friends. It’s just -- they told me they’ve heard the same emotional story, over and over and over again, like the boy who cried wolf, and they were getting tired of it.
That just makes me feel more alone. But I’ve been alone for a while, and I can continue to be. She told me she had her group of friends, the same group she bakes pizza with, the same group that comes together to survive in the harsh Chicago winters and academic environment. I don’t really have a group like that. I’ve never had a group like that. The closest thing is the “boozy brunch fam” the group of friends with whom I would frequent boozy brunches with, during a New York summer, and get shitfaced. I don’t really consider most of them close enough to tell my problems to (except for maybe one), and one of them would roll her eyes anyway.
The next closest thing to that kind of warm family I have is the group here at the math department, but again I don’t think I should burden them with anything. I don’t talk to my actual family about these issues either.
Brandon doesn’t really help either despite being my best friend. He listens, but he doesn’t understand. I can’t make him understand. I don’t think I can make anyone understand -- that’s not something anyone can just force others to do, they have to be willing to understand in the first place. And he’s heard this “tragic love story” already. Another eye-roller.
I’ve resolved to do fewer drugs. I’ve resolved to read more. I’ve resolved to pass comps. I’ve resolved to be more well informed. I’ve resolved to do more in local politics. I’ve resolved to find an advisor. I’ve resolved to kick ass. I’ve resolved to like myself more.
It’s a new year, it’s a new me. It’s time to grow the fuck up. It’s time to be less annoying. It’s time to be a boss ass bitch. It’s time to look forward and don’t look back.
It’s time to be a little less Bojack Horseman and a little more Princess Carolyn.
And maybe when I come back from this adventure I’ve set myself out on, I’ll see her again. And maybe I’ll feel alright. I’m doing alright.
The fact that the hotheaded Trump acts like a child in front of the cool, calculating Clinton is appropriate, considering how neoliberalism breeds fascism.
One thing that the Internet and social media has given us, as a species, is the ability to be fully self-conscious and self-aware in a global sense. We, the non-academic Americans, can now fully realize with a click of a button the nuances and intricacies that our high school history classes ignorantly missed or deliberately misled, and come away with a fuller realization of the nature of our country in relation with, not only its own internal domestic biology, but also other nations and their respective histories. It is then our moral duty, as citizens, to utilize the technology we have and learn as much as we can with regards to our current state of affairs -- especially in times that demand it.
These notes are intended to be a collection of information and thoughts with an emphasis on the United States 2016 presidential election, and hopefully does not come out as yet another trite thinkpiece.
As of the writing of these notes, the United States is presumably closer to the actualization of a fascist dictatorship than in any other time in its history, and this is meant without hyperbole (despite the years of media sensationalism and fearmongering rhetoric employed by both of the main political parties against each other from 2000-2012 (the Democrats against Bush and the Republicans against Obama respectively), which further rendered the terms “Nazi” and “fascist” completely useless). The fascist in mind is clearly Donald Trump, the current presidential nominee of the Republican Party, who has run a campaign grounded in fear and bigotry, plainly catering to the white working class’s prejudices and insecurities, especially those towards large influxes of immigration. There is no debate as to the professional character of Donald Trump: there have been a number of thinkpieces and articles written by the American intelligentsia and mainstream media on how he’s a classic short-tempered bully incapable of being presidential. Nor is there a debate regarding his moral character (or lack thereof): his racist rhetoric demanding a federal registry of Muslim Americans, or that Syrian refugees be screened based on their faith, or that Mexican immigrants should all be deported, etc. has inspired quite enough online writing (not to mention endorsements from a number of outspoken white supremacists, which Trump has all halfheartedly “disavowed” (wink wink)). Moreover, Trump’s comments in the media towards women and his very choice of vice president, the horrifically Atwoodian theocrat Mike Pence, clearly demonstrate Trump’s own sexism and homophobia (or at least, his interest in further pandering to the sexist and homophobic). Not to mention Trump’s generalization of Mexican immigrants as rapists, or his imitation of a disabled news reporter, or his coded speeches against Black Lives Matter, etc. Indeed, Trump’s racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and other forms of support for institutional oppression requires no further comment: it is obvious. It is transparent. It is clear.
What isn’t so obvious, transparent, or clear is the moral nature of his opponent Hillary Clinton, who receives moral criticism precisely for her failure to be obvious, transparent, and clear. Clinton also suffers from the same failings as Trump albeit more professionally - Clinton’s support for certain policies that are destructive to marginalized groups is indicative of her own racism, sexism, etc. but these prejudices are hidden behind layers and layers of bureaucratic language. Whereas Trump is the loudmouthed bully whose bigotries are blatant, Clinton is the quiet business professional who would never say such horrid things like Mr. Trump, but would write and support legislation that decimates entire generations of marginalized communities. I personally have not much newer to say regarding this analysis: there is plenty of research done comparing the two in their methods of oppression. However, for completion’s sake, I will note and cite some research here (author’s note: I did not include any citations for Trump’s failings above because, as I have noted, they are obvious and easy to find online, and these notes are not meant for Trump supporters. These notes are meant for Clinton voters who base their active support off of her pragmatism and policy. These are not meant for reluctant voters supporting her out of fear of a Trump presidency, shanghaied by a two-party system).
Before any further commentary and outline of Clinton’s policy plans, it is important to note here that Hillary Clinton has developed a cultural reputation for being the following: pragmatic, organized, logistical, efficient, utilitarian. Her pragmatism and efficiency are lauded by her supporters as one of her greatest strengths; one hears this in their rhetoric about her, saying that, unlike the (apparently/relatively) stubborn idealist Bernie Sanders or the inexperienced radical Jill Stein, that Clinton can “actually get things done” and “knows what she’s talking about”. The following notes demonstrate that this strength is also one of Hillary’s biggest weaknesses, as it can be used against her.
Note, again, also that the pieces of evidence used in these notes against Clinton’s progressivism have all already been established in various articles and thinkpieces online. These notes are just my personal attempt at finding actual data supporting the most obvious claims against her (such as her policies’ effects on black communities, her support for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.). In other words, I adopt a Clintonesque attitude in these very notes: actual, concrete criticisms are outlined against actual, concrete policies.
It’s also important to emphasize that one should not blame Hillary Clinton for all of her husband’s policies during his administration; this in itself is sexist ideology, as it maintains the idea that a woman’s personhood is dependent on her male partner’s. However, here Hillary’s own purported strengths also eat themselves: as she was so involved in developing public policy alongside her husband, she must then also be culpable of his administration’s failings in many respects. Thus, it is important to assert that the criticism of Hillary Clinton from her time working in the Bill Clinton administration comes not from a view of her as a wife of the president, but as a White House advisor.
We must then compare Hillary Clinton’s policies as outlined today, with her support for policies in the past - not only as First Lady, but also as New York senator and Secretary of State.
For now, the emphasis will be on Clinton’s racism and sexism, as, in this day and age of identity politics, racism and sexism seem to be the two most heinous ideologies to maintain -- and even then, I will comment only on the most egregious policies that she has supported. There are policies of hers that do warrant progressive support, but that is for another time; we should be careful in praising the work of politicians, especially when there is an entire propaganda apparatus doing so already.
There will not be any comment made on her email scandal, which is the least of my concerns. It’s her actual policies that are truly worrisome.
---
Racial/criminal justice.
From Clinton’s own website outlining her platform:
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the total prison population. A significant percentage of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today are nonviolent offenders. African American men are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than white men found guilty of the same offenses.
(...)
Reforming mandatory minimum sentencing. Excessive federal mandatory minimum sentences keep nonviolent drug offenders in prison for too long—and have increased racial inequality in our criminal justice system. Hillary will reform this system by:
1. Cutting mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses in half.
2. Allowing current nonviolent prisoners to seek fairer sentences. Eliminating the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine so that equal amounts of crack and powder cocaine carry equal sentences, and applying this change retroactively.
3. Reforming the “strike” system, so that nonviolent drug offenses no longer count as a “strike,” reducing the mandatory penalty for second- and third-strike offenses.
It’s important to note here that several of these policies that Hillary Clinton proposes to reform are actually policies that she and the Bill Clinton administration had supported in the 1990s, such as the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine (which has its origins from the Reagan administration’s War on Drugs, a war that the Clinton administration escalated) and the controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (i.e., popularized as “the” 1994 crime bill). Note also that Bernie Sanders also supported the 1994 crime bill. Note also that the Violence Against Women Act, which largely succeeded in what it meant to do, is also part of this bill.
The point is that this controversial bill had both progressive and reactionary parts; however, just as human beings are complex creatures, the fact remains that the bill maintained and introduced policies that decimated black communities (as wonderfully summarized by Michelle Alexander here). This is racism. You could call it racism with additional help for women, or racism with an attempt at curbing American gun violence, but it remains racism nonetheless. Moral actions do not “cancel” one another out as if they are quantifiable entities. If this logically necessitates that Vice President Joe Biden and the rest of Congress that supported the bill are also racist, then it must be so.
As Michelle Alexander puts it in her article linked above:
An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.
Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. As Harvard sociologist Bruce Western explains: “Much of the optimism about declines in racial inequality and the power of the US model of economic growth is misplaced once we account for the invisible poor, behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails.” When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs. Young black men weren’t looking for work at high rates during the Clinton era because they were now behind bars—out of sight, out of mind, and no longer counted in poverty and unemployment statistics.
(Perhaps Hillary Clinton is so good at outlining detailed policy plans to rescue black people because she was so good at supporting detailed policy plans in imprisoning them in the first place.)
Moreover, consider Hillary Clinton’s history of supporting free trade deals (which admittedly is hard to describe as a “history” given that she changes positions on trade quite a bit), such as NAFTA and the TPP (the latter which she now opposes). Consider also the effects of free trade and neoliberalism on both domestic and foreign working classes, which essentially amounts to job outsourcing and mass unemployment of the former, and cheaper and cheaper exploitation of the latter. Consider also who exactly comprises the working class in both cases: largely people of color.
Here a contradiction arises. A large portion of Hillary Clinton’s image and rhetoric is that she is the “first female presidential nominee for a major political party” (ignoring the blatant condescension towards third parties with the choice of term “major”); identity politics drive her cultural image, especially propelled by the current ideology of third wave feminism. However, Clinton fails to uphold one of third wave feminism’s crucial tenets, which is the notion of intersectionality: one cannot be a feminist and a racist simultaneously. The support for neoliberal policies that continue to exploit and destroy the working class, primarily comprised of people of color, is support for systemic racism. To that extent, as a racist, Clinton is not a third wave feminist.
The following section shows that it’s hard to call her a feminist at all.
For more on the previous section see: 1, 2
---
Women’s rights.
This is where we primarily focus on Clinton’s tenure as New York senator and Secretary of State.
This is again where Clinton fails to uphold intersectionality, specifically in the case of women of color.
From Clinton’s own website outlining her platform:
1. Confront violence against women. One in five women in America is sexually assaulted while in college. Twenty-two percent of women experience severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime. American women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with guns than women in other high-income countries. It’s time to address violence against women—and Hillary will put forward bold plans to do that. Read more here and here.
(...)
2. Promote women’s rights around the globe. In far too many parts of the world, women are still held back by social, economic, and legal barriers. Hillary will promote gender equality around the world.
Here are the two main parts of Clinton’s platform that happen to contradict with her position on foreign policy, arguably the most problematic part of her platform.
Note as New York state senator, Hillary Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act, and supported the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2002 Iraq War resolution. Clinton today still supports additional domestic surveillance and military intervention to combat terrorism. She herself states this on her very own website.
There is also a contradiction within her implementation of the Hillary Doctrine as Secretary of State, which essentially declares women’s rights and violence against women as issues of national security. The contradiction arises when one examines this doctrine through an intersectional third-wave feminist lens: Clinton is an ardent supporter for the state of Israel, where the current siege of Gaza and occupation of the West Bank are, according to Amnesty, human rights violations, and the ongoing Israeli settlements are, according to a number of international organizations (such as the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the Red Cross, etc.), illegal and violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Clinton’s hawkishness and imperialist ambitions are also apparent from her liberal support of drone strikes in Pakistan and her support of violent regime change in Libya, not for humanitarian purposes but to further Western influence in the region.
Women are victims of US military intervention. Women are victims of drone strikes. Women are victims of occupation. Women are victims of imperialism. Women are victims of domestic spying and surveillance.
All of the above actions constitute violence against women and hamper women’s rights, so one is tempted to ask Clinton whom exactly she means in her policy outline above, as it seems clear that it does not apply to women in the Middle East.
The unfortunate misconception that identity politics is the end all be all of modern political discourse and progressivism, a belief that the current Democrats seem to hold, is what leads to white feminism destroying generations of Middle Eastern families. Clinton is thus not a feminist; she fails to be intersectional. And if you roll your eyes at the idea that Clinton’s failure to be intersectional is antifeminist, then surely you should re-examine your own notion of feminism and whom exactly that benefits.
For more on the previous section, see: 1
---
On the nature of politics as a game, and identity politics.
The above demonstrates Clinton is indisputably racist and sexist, given her history of supporting racist and sexist policies, as well as her claims that she will continue to support racist and sexist policies. This does not even comment on her connections to Wall Street banks and their own foundations upon the continued exploitation of the marginalized, or her support for the NSA and its racist spying on Muslim American academics and activists. Certainly, Clinton is highly descriptive in her policy outlines, but one should not vote for someone on the basis that they’re very specific in how they will kill brown people.
People will inevitably accuse me of being too harsh on moral grounds, or that I am hypocritical for calling Clinton racist and sexist when ordinary people may support such systems in everyday life as much as she does in her policy work. I do not absolve myself of these criticisms. I myself am very racist and sexist in day-to-day life. In fact, it is probably better that we all realize ourselves as racist and sexist, instead of deluding ourselves that we are not. We all have internalized biases from these systems of oppression, and the faster we realize we do, the better.
People will also accuse me that these policies are not necessarily Hillary Clinton’s own fault, and that she is a product of her environment, and that it is the system that is racist and sexist rather than her own individual self. There is a degree of truth to this; I am sure Secretary Clinton has had to make her fair share of compromises in making effective progressive change.
However, individuals are not without agency in systems of oppression; there are certain actions that are completely within the realm of our own self, and thus are completely our own responsibility to bear. For example, a white male refusing to accept that the word n*gger is violent and oppressive is completely responsible for that decision; it is partly a matter of his environment that he believes this position, but given the consideration of facts, opinions, and data provided by others, he has the final responsibility to make this decision. Similarly, I cannot, ever, accept drone strikes as a matter of systemic inevitability. The fact that the casualty rate consists of 90% civilians (as noted in a link above, under Foreign policy) is outrageous. Clinton, Obama, and other individual politicians remain, to a degree, culpable of their complicity in supporting systems of oppression (as do we, as individual citizens).
The difference is that we, as individual citizens, are not politicians. It is imperative that politicians be held to higher moral standards than ordinary citizens precisely because of the nature of their power. This is why the criticisms above should remain harsh. Moreover, Clinton represents the ordinary establishment, which is the prevailing ideology; to declare ordinary, everyday life and establishment politics as racist and sexist is to challenge the truly dominant. Thus, these criticisms are made, as it is more imperative to remove the social stigma of challenging those who actually do have power within our local spheres -- and the ones who actually write the laws today are indeed the unassuming, white-collared neoliberal imperialists, who decimate and rape entire nations with cold, calculating, bureaucratic pragmatism.
Furthermore, the idea that an individual is deprived of agency to a non-negligible extent in a given system of oppression is what leads to the idea that Muslim women have no agency in their choice of dress, which is how we get white Western imperialism liberating Muslim women from their hijabs through bombs and rockets. Note however that an overemphasis on individual experience can again lead to inadvertent support for a system of oppression through tokenism or a fracturing of the oppressed class (i.e., the Democrats’ own brand of feminism which emphasizes the individual (in line with their neoliberal ideology) (”first female president”) logically allows for individual women to provide such disparate accounts of oppression that there is no coherent collective agreement, and thus no capability of coherent collective action against systemic oppression. This kills the women working class. Thus there is an inherent contradiction in trying to prioritize identity politics as the ultimate end goal; intersectionality must play a role, extending over race, class, sexual orientation, etc.).
Moreover, in response to the argument that certain positions were completely made from a pragmatic point of view, such as the Clinton administration’s triangulation tactics applied to both the welfare system and crime legislation, here “pragmatic” meaning in the political sense, I must stand opposed. Triangulation is essentially the act of taking one’s political opponent’s political positions and making them your own, thus depriving them of a position and presenting yourself as transcending partisan boundaries. This necessitates that one has no actual political/personal stake in the position at hand: if one actually cared about the issue, then there would be no need for an attitude where one can “trade” certain policies just to get ahead in the political world. In essence, this is treating politics as a game, which is morally reprehensible. People argue passionately and angrily over politics because people’s lives are stake. The only form of politics that does not do this is restricted to the very local sphere, such as maybe electing a local comptroller (or some other inane example like that; I admittedly don’t know much about the duties of a comptroller). The idea that people’s lives can be treated as a game, or as pieces to move on account of pragmatism, is appalling. It also demonstrates a very clear lack of principle or ideological consistency. If one wants to treat people’s lives as playthings for the sake of their own ambition, then I invite one to go fuck themselves.
---
Concluding thoughts.
It is unfortunate that Hillary Clinton is the face of the establishment, for it is not really Clinton herself, the person, that I truly abhor, but the system that produced her and Trump alike.
Clinton sadly represents a continuation of neoliberalism, the very reason as to why Trump (and also Sanders) has so many angry supporters in defiance of globalization and elitist power. If not Trump today, then Trump tomorrow. The true worker’s revolution will be for bread, and not liberation; the workers will not be class conscious, just angry at Hispanics. It is morally imperative to reject Trump whenever he arises, but it is also morally imperative to get out of this cycle of Trumps as soon as possible; this upcoming election is ultimately a choice between a fatal symptom and the chronic disease that spawned it. If we are to vote for Clinton and against Trump, that is, remove the symptom, then we better damn well do the necessary work to destroy the disease. Otherwise, we can expect yet another Trump, another tumor.
Critics of these notes may accuse me that such stringent stances on account of moral grounds would necessarily force me to be unable to participate in any form of political work. I assert that this is true, at least insofar as political work is restricted to working within the realm of the establishment. It is still very possible to expect high moral standards from legislators while seeking political change; one’s efforts would only have to be concentrated into much more local work, whether it’s through local government or grassroots activism. This type of work is far less sexy than the type of politics discussed at the national level, and perhaps that is precisely what politics should be -- work for the function of society, than for the discussion of pseudo-intellectuals and pundits.
Speaking of, there’s also the issue of people my age (fuckin’ millennials wink wink) not actually taking the time to do hard, annoying research into the policy positions of the actual candidates. Certainly, most of us are content with listening to the rhetoric and reading thinkpieces and articles analyzing the cultural effects of these candidates’ campaigns and feeling like pundits and intellectuals with our “informed opinions” and so on and so on, but to take the time to actually read the policies, consider the contexts, and understand the implications, is arduous and boring. It is not sexy. It does not make anyone feel like an intellectual. It is homework. It is dull. However, there’s only one way to really know what the hell is going on, and it is precisely this. This is exactly the type of boring, monotonous, unnoticed work necessary at the local level to keep society functioning as described above.
---
Some final questions for active Clinton supporters.
It is evident that Clinton is qualified to be president. She would indeed be pragmatic and efficient. However, the issues on which she would be pragmatic and efficient are highly problematic, e.g., Hillary Clinton would be an extremely effective warmonger in the Middle East. The question for you then is about your priorities: are you really so obsessed with ruthless efficiency that you would accept effective imperialism over ineffective idealism? Given that Sanders himself is actually not that radical, based on his own policies outlined in his platform, could the case not be made that Sanders would be more effective in passing progressive legislation? If one tries to push for more radical legislation, then the art of compromise ultimately forces it to be more moderate -- so why start with someone who would start the bargain with a more moderate argument, which would ultimately be compromised into something possibly regressive? To that extent, the “efficiency” of the candidates should be measured by the totality of their progressive agendas -- Clinton would pursue a very regressive foreign policy and a moderate-regressive domestic policy all very effectively, whereas Sanders would pursue a less regressive foreign policy and a progressive-moderate domestic policy less effectively. The consequences of the former would seem largely reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. What would the consequences be of accepting the latter? Why would they be worse than the former?
The big problem in activism is a matter of speed: how quickly do we want society to change? And this extends to our attitudes and mentalities regarding our own internalized biases. When did the people of tomorrow matter more than the people of today? Sure, Trump is a pressing issue, but why blame folks for demanding an end to the system that created him in the first place?
I want you to call yourself “your girl” in relation to me. This sounds extremely misogynistic, but I have this desire because I remember when you went to your work event and came back home with two bottles of wine, the first thing you said to me was “hey guess what, there was free alch at the event. your girl just got us two bottles of wine.” and my first thought was oh. interesting terminology. wow, no one’s ever called themselves my girl in relation to me.
I want to be single but also want to be with you and only you forever. I know we’re (eye roll) fucking millennials trapped in the 21st century dating game, but I fucking hate pretending that I like other people when no one’s made me hate them more than you, I hate you so much for all your little quirks and annoyances, but I want to suffer from them until the day I die because they’re still you and I want to be with you. But I also want to spend a few years being single and fucking around. But I also don’t want to get emotionally attached. But god sex is great. But god love is greater.
I want to be able to treat your body again and again like a thirsty man drinks water -- and drown in it. I have literally memorized the contours of your cute little fucking smug patronizing smile, and I love the way your face sorta moves to the side entirely when you make a >:T face which you tend to do and it’s literally the cutest thing in the world. Aside from your cute, cute Midwestern accent that you get when you’re tipsy. Aside from the fact that you love to show off pictures of your younger sister when you’re drunk as fuck because that fact is also incredibly fucking cute, you Lt. Maes Hughes piece of adorable garbage.
I want to do to you what misogynists do to sex addicts -- like a poet using a dildo, in an overly inflated metaphor about objectification. I want to put you up on a pedestal made of shit because you are actually pretty horrible sometimes to some people, but so is everyone, and that’s okay because I want to be with you because that’s still you and I want to be with you, and also I have a penchant towards iconoclasm (in particular towards smashing away patriarchal pedestals). I want to fuck you until you smile one of your wide dimpled smiles and gasp you’re unreal and this is the best sex I’ve ever had and oh god I’m coming again.* I want to spank you until I leave a handprint on your fucking juicy ass holy shit. I want you to feel me get harder as you grip my cock with one of your patented famous handjob techniques. I want to feel you throb around my dick as we come together and you ask Can you feel me?. I want to smell your purple hair as we spoon. I want to feel your toes curl with mine. I want to wake up at 5 AM because my cock grew hard against your wet cunt and we rinse and repeat the above, again and again and again. And we fall asleep, again.
I want to marry you then get divorced because of irreconcilable differences and then rekindle our love over the divorce process and then fall in love again just as the divorce is finalized and I have to stay a hundred feet away from you and then we get married again for an hour until I have to leave (just like the time when I asked if you would be in a relationship with me for an hour before I left Chicago -- shortest relationship ever, we joked, after we complained about the tiresome parts of dating (especially long-distance dating)) and we would divorce and marry and divorce and marry and I want to do that until we both die together. I just want to be with you for that long.
I want to message you but I’m afraid that if I do, and I tell you everything, about how I feel and what I want, then you’re going to say no and leave forever. I know you want to be single for a while because you’ve been in relationships your whole life, I totally get that, that’s why I ended my previous relationship. I don’t want a long distance relationship either. But honestly, my god, I would love to throw all of that away if I could just be with you. Jesus, this timing sucks. Maybe I’m overhyping you because of the limited amount of time we spent together? Maybe if we had spent more time together then we would come to hate each other more and I wouldn’t be here moping into empty 1s and 0s? Maybe you’re in the same boat of fear that I’m in and don’t want to say anything out of shame or fear of looking like a dope for catching sentiments in this awful goddamn fucking prison of a game called 21st century online dating? Neither of us want a long distance relationship. You don’t want a relationship at all. You want to be single for a bit, and that’s fine, I had my time like that too. I don’t want to get in the way of you being single for once in your life. But also maybe I’m just saying all of this because I don’t want to get outright rejected. I don’t want to talk with you because (1) what’s the point, if you don’t want to be with me? I’d be so despondent. We could be friends, sure, I’d love that, but right now, I love you and if you don’t want this, that’s fine too, but then I wouldn’t want to talk with you anyway so I’ll just end up being despondent for a while until I’m healthy again to talk with you and be an actual fucking human being -- but I’m currently being despondent anyway! (2) And if I actually decide to talk to you, I’m afraid I’ll get my hopes up, and you’ll crush them anyway. And then I’m back in case (1). But for possibly a longer time? In either case, at least one of us is sitting alone in their room curled up in the fetal position and just hurting for a while. In both cases, I know that at most it’ll be me.
I want to know your thoughts. I want to know your opinions on politics. I want to know your arguments for your philosophical positions. I want to know your justifications for drone striking children in the Middle East. I want to know your first and last dreams and aspirations. I want to know your deepest, nagging fear locked away in the back of your mind. I want to know the secrets you keep from certain people, except maybe mine because I know you’d want me to respect that. I want to know why your favorite songs are those, why your favorite thing to cook is pizza (I actually know this one -- there’s a communal element to it and you love the act of feeding other people (not feeding itself necessarily); maybe it’s tied to your no-nonsense get-shit-done attitude of caring for your community), and why you think travel is inherently interesting (I also know this one because you told me it necessitates new people, new places, just new experiences, etc, and I wasn’t quite satisfied with that answer; you wrote to some fucking lit mags, gimme that quality star writing sweet Jesus). I want to know why you cried for two hours once in front of your boyfriend. I want to know why you worked once as an operator for the suicide hotline. I want to know if you want to know about my job history because I’m a pretentious narcissist. I want to know if you’re thinking of me as much as I’m thinking of you. I want to say we both know the feelings are there, but neither of us can be with each other. That sucks ass. It’s easier to pretend you don’t like me at all. And hell, maybe that’s the more probable reality. Maybe I’m just fooling myself again. I’m paralyzed. All we can do is sit and hurt.
I want you.
*A comment on this remarking that this statement is essentially bragging would in itself make the brag more obvious whereas without the comment would retain the subtlety of the brag; as I don’t want to brag, neither through explicit bravado or self-conscious, postmodern commentary, I’ll leave an asterisk mark and a pretentious footnote that’s hopefully so long-looking and intimidating that it immediately repulses the reader away from further reading (the fact that I’m making the joke about the footnote being so phallic is further indicative of the inescapable trappings of Ideology. God I truly hope you don’t find this diary somehow and then realize that this is about you and how fucking weird I am).
The song Accidentally in Love which I am currently listening to, from the movie Shrek 2, was nominated for an Academy Award in 2004. I guess I am writing to say that I can see why now.
My stomach literally hurts because I miss you so much. It’s literally painful. It is literally the worst feeling I have ever felt, and I have been kicked in the balls. And had my heart broken - but by someone else, and not as much. I have also been rejected from some good graduate schools, wow I was so bad on the GRE. It is worse than my stomach after the night I had the curry phaal challenge from Bricklane Curry House and consumed so much lassi I diarrhead molten fire at 5 AM. It felt like I was being repeatedly punched in the chest. This is mustard gas. It’s a fucking poison. You are a fucking poison. A poison I would gladly drink.
I miss you. Please come back. Please start a long distance relationship with me. Please just be with me. I’ll give up my job, I’ll give up my dreams, I’ll give it all up if I could be with you, but I know that’s not the kind of guy you want, so I will draw the line at there. I will be the submissive stay-at-home-dad while you do the corporate pants-wearing and then end up sleeping with your male secretaries while I’m heartbroken at home because I gave you EVERYTHING. I would vote for Hillary Clinton for you because I would literally abandon my principles because fuck them, I’m with you. And I would gladly take them back after realizing you like me having principles. I just like you so painfully much I just want you to like me back as much so I’m desperate for anything. Like the character Jake says to the character Lainie from the movie Sleeping with Other People, I know we would both fail in long distance relationships because we just fail at these sorts of things because they’re hard it’s not necessarily our fault, despite failing at all of this, I would rather fail with you than anyone else. And god I know I’m afraid of a relationship based on me genuinely loving you and you loving me mainly because I was the only one to show you that much affection, and us eventually growing distant because you don’t love me as much as I love you. But these are the real and honest gutwrenching feelings I have.
ellievsbear
blakekathryn
theartofmadeline
dededos
andulkaphoto