PEOPLE UNITED FOR A SHIRTLESS ABERCROMOCRACY UNDER LAW

A STATEMENT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

By : Mr. Archer D. Whipporwhorol IV, Party Spokesman and Abercrombie & Fitch Model; Age 18; pure Anglo-Saxon ancestry dating to 986 AD; Fifth-generation student, The Bluemeadow School, Upper Valeridge, New York (Specialization in Lacrosse and Croquet); Owner of 56 pair of flip-flops, 34 button-down shirts, 76 adjustable-collar polo-style shirts, 18 pair of torn jeans, 27 pair of cargo-style knee-length shorts, 34 assorted bracelets and necklaces, 86 pair of khaki trousers; Member, Fairhollow Beach Club (a private beach association on the Atlantic Coast); Photographs extremely well in black-and-white.

Our country is ready for Abercromocracy under law. We have experimented too long with popular government. Democratic government does not work. Rather, only Abercromocracy can rescue America from its woes: Government by impossibly good-looking, shirtless, post-pubescent Abercrombie & Fitch models like me.

America deserves exceptionally good-looking people in the highest offices. For too long, America has allowed extremely ugly, old and out-of-shape people to run its affairs. This is unfair to the American people. The American people want sex-drenched youthful exuberance in their leaders. They want their rulers to rule by merit: Merit in rippling teenage abs, merit in luscious lips, merit in inaccessible yet alluringly vacant looks, merit in dreamy yet intent eyes, merit in slanted nipples, merit in chest definition, merit in gorgeous smiles, merit in sand-covered tanned skin, merit in sparkling toes, merit in volleyball ability and merit in sun-tossed blondishness.

It's time to end ugliness in government. It's time to let beautiful people run the show.

Let's face it. America loves looking at us. We are the most stunningly beautiful people in the country. Whether male or female, we excite lust in everyone: Gay, straight and everything in between. Our carefree youthfulness transcends class barriers and unites everyone. Everyone wants to be like us. Everyone wants to frolic shirtless with us in the sand and wear our flip-flops. Everyone wants to dance naked with us near a beach bonfire late into the night. And everyone wants to wake up half-naked next to us as the summer dawn breaks over the beach horizon. In short, we turn every American on: Just look at all the clothes they buy from us.

We believe that our ability to excite lust makes us uniquely qualified to handle American government. After all, there is little difference between wise political rule and lust. A great politician arouses passions in the people, just as our impossibly good looks arouse insistent cravings in our followers. Leadership requires passion. We can generate that. And we are sure that most Americans would rather hear about job creation from a beautiful 19-year-old beach god than some stunted 67-year-old with bad hair.

Good-looking people command obedience. People like to look at us. They are more willing to look at us than some overweight career politician who eats donuts and never surfs. When people look at us, they get lost in our fantastically blue eyes. They drift away thinking about our beautiful skin and sun-tossled blond locks. They do anything we say. That is what leadership is all about. After all, we have good ideas. We are the best people. We are Abercromocrats.

Not everyone can be an Abercromocrat. Only current Abercrombie & Fitch models qualify. America does not want wrinkled people making top political decisions. America does not want facial hair and beer guts deciding what happens to our economy. And America does not want old people telling it what to do. Rather, America wants aloof, youthful, seductive and carefree teenagers dictating policy. Americans listen to us. They want to be like us. We are beauty incarnate. And beauty is power.

It is only natural that we should hold political power in this country. Our stunning beauty entitles us to rule everyone who is less good-looking than we are. We do not have pockmarks or pimples. We do not have back hair or bad breath. We do not have canker sores or discolored skin. We are not bald. We are not lame. We are strong, slender, sun-bronzed and mind-numbingly sexy. We dominate the lacrosse field and the volleyball square. We have merit. Not everyone can be an Abercrombie & Fitch model. Not everyone can stare at a camera as intently as we can with our piercing Anglo-Saxon eyes. And not everyone has nipples like us. Put simply, we are perfect. It is only fitting that the perfect rule the imperfect.

Our opponents say that beauty is not the only thing in the world. They say that our impossible beauty does not qualify us to handle the complicated intellectual issues that arise in American government. They say that we are too young to understand how to resolve foreign crises, manage the Federal Reserve system and save the economy from destruction. Worse, our opponents claim that we are arrogant, overprivileged and superficial rich kids who know nothing about real life.

Our opponents can moan all they want. They are ugly and overweight. No matter what they say, they shop at our stores. They secretly admire our pictures and wish they could watch us dance naked on the beach. We are more powerful than they will ever be. And to their criticisms we say this: Beauty makes perfection. We are perfect. Any course we adopt for America will be perfect, too. We are certain that America will rally behind us. When Americans drool over their political leaders, there is nothing we cannot accomplish as a Nation.

In the Abercromocratic State, image is everything. Whenever we appear in public, we must be filmed in grainy black-and-white in a carefree atmosphere. We will give press conferences from the beach. Male Abercromocrats must always remain shirtless. Female Abercromocrats must always wear short shorts and tight-fitting tops. For important policy statements, male Abercromocrats must lie down, rest their heads on their hands and wear only tight underpants. Justices of the Abercromocratic Supreme Court must wear sexy bandanas, tank tops and flip-flops. In our perfect Abercromocracy, we will solve every problem with youthful beauty alone. We need nothing else.

America is tired of listening to ugly old people talk about complicated political issues. America wants change. America wants a youthful face. For that reason, we must embrace Abercromocracy. This is the only natural thing to do. We have merit. We have abs. We are not old and tired. We play beachball all day and party deep into every night. We are unafraid to kayak naked or climb mountains in our underwear. Our pictures hypnotize everyone who beholds them. We deserve to rule because we have already won America's respect. We do not need to fuss around in elections or convince people that we know how to solve problems. Our ability is self-evident: We are shockingly beautiful half-naked men and women whose youthful lustiness oozes from every pore in our bodies. What more do we need to rule the greatest country on earth?

Democracy is overrated. It is a deviant government because it permits unnaturally ugly people to participate in important State policy. It has failed. Government by short, fat, hairy people has led this country to the brink of economic collapse. It is time to restore natural order to government. To do that, we must abandon Democracy and adopt Abercromocracy. When the most beautiful members of the species rule, we please nature. And when we please nature, our State can do no wrong. Just as the strongest and lustiest lions rule the pride, so too must the strongest and lustiest Abercrombie & Fitch models rule the United States. Nature chose us not only to excite lust in everyone who buys flip-flops and prewashed high-collar polo shirts with the emblem "92" on the sleeve. Nature also chose us to rule everyone too ugly to rule themselves. That is why we must adopt Abercromocracy: It is the only natural thing to do.

We can no longer afford to delude ourselves that everyone is equal in the United States. Just look at us. Our staggering beauty proves that we are not equal. We are the best. In that light, it makes sense to let us rule. Just as a coach chooses only the best players to make the team, so too must America allow the best people to rule the rest.

We are the best people. We have the best faces and the best teeth. We have the best skin and the best tongues. Our bodies are immaculate. They inspire envy and awe in all who see them. What more do we need to convince America that we must rule?

Join us in our quest to end the deviant social experiment called "American Democracy." If you are tired of unqualified, fat, ugly, hairy people dictating how you live, you must yield all political power to the Abercromocrats. We know how to rule. Nature chose us for a reason. It is pointless to resist nature. Plus we look oh-so-good in flip-flops.

Do the natural thing. Establish Abercromocracy before this country slips into oblivion.

IS "LUST" A BAD WORD?

AN ESSAY

I have written that English is a merry hodgepodge of German, French and Latin. To truly understand English, it is necessary to understand these three disparate linguistic traditions. Virtually every English word derives from these traditions. By understanding the unique history behind every word, we can better understand the true meanings concealed in the words we use every day. And that can help us bring intellectual order to difficult problems.

At bottom, English is a Germanic language. Its most basic words—such as common nouns, prepositions, connectors and core verbs—all derive from a Germanic source. That is why many English speakers can intuit the meaning of basic German sentences, even if they speak no German. “Core” English words are virtually identical to German. For example: “Meine Hand hat fünf Finger.” You do not need to study German to guess that means: “My hand has five fingers.” English began with German. For that reason many German words are self-explanatory.

But much has changed in English over the centuries. Many Germanic words have drifted far from their original meanings, even if they look the same in both languages. There are many reasons for this, not least the overriding influence of Church Latin and Court French on the common tongue. These influences have created separate lexicons in English. Put another way, it is possible to say the same thing in English with a word drawn from each distinct linguistic tradition. If you receive some bodily harm, for example, you can say: “I’m hurt!” That is German-based. You can also say: “I am injured!” That is Latin-based. “Injured” sounds more sophisticated than “hurt,” even though the basic meaning is the same. Latin—and its French offspring—typically offers the English speaker a means to “dress up” core German concepts. Another example: If you put your arms around a friend, you can say: “I embrace you.” That sounds more sophisticated than: “I put my arms around you.” Why? Because “embrace” comes from the French words “en” and “bras,” meaning “in” and “arm.” But the “core” English sounds much more akin to the German word for “embrace:” “umarmen,” literally, “to put arms around.”

Lust is another core German word. Lust is interesting because the word is the same in both English and German, but their meanings differ in subtle ways. For one reason or another, English did not adopt a Latin or French “frill” to obfuscate “Lust.” It simply retained the hard-hitting, original German orthography. When a modern English speaker hears the word “lust,” it generally connotes unrestrained sexual desire. There is a moralistic overtone to the word. “Lust” is associated with “the flesh,” and in Christian discourse, “the flesh” stands in negative contrast to “the soul.” Modern English dictionaries reinforce these negative connotations. Webster tells us that “lust” means: (1) a desire to gratify the senses; bodily appetite; (2) sexual desire; excessive sexual desire; or (3) an overmastering desire. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. In Middle English, “Lust” meant “pleasure, delight and appetite.” “Lust,” then, has everything to do with the body. Lust expresses the body’s basest desires, whether for sex, food, drink, sleep or any other basic stimulus. From a Christian perspective, the body is a burden. It distracts the mind from attention to the soul. “Lust” is “bad” because it reflects the body’s “overmastering” influence over a person. In English, “Lust” connotes shameful indulgence to the body.

In German, “die Lust” also refers to the body. But there is no overriding moralistic element in the word. Wahrig’s German Dictionary defines “die Lust” as: “(1) Inclination; gentle impulse; need; (2) good feeling; pleasant appeal; joy; and (3) satisfaction; enjoyment” (my translations). In these definitions, we see that German “Lust” does not condemn the body for its inclinations. In German, the body’s impulses are “gentle.” They bring about “pleasant appeal” and “good feelings,” not “overmastering desire.” It is more neutral than its English counterpart. For example, Germans typically use “Lust” to express even the most innocuous daily desires: “Hast Du Lust auf einen Kaffee?” (“Do you feel like [having] a coffee?”). In English, it would be profound overstatement to ask: “Do you lust for a coffee?” Both words refer to a “bodily desire” for something. In English the desire is “overmastering.” In German, it is “gentle.”

What do these differing definitions tell us about our relationship to the body? Language defines a culture as much as it regulates grammar. In English, the word “Lust” negatively brands bodily inclinations. It is permissible to “want” to eat, but it is somehow immodest to “lust” for a meal. In German, on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with saying: “I have lust for a sandwich.” There is no shame in the body’s desire for some food. Unlike German “Lust,” English “Lust” has assumed a moral dimension with respect to bodily desire. It compares all bodily inclinations with sexual inclinations. In the German definition, the word “sex” does not appear anywhere. Yet it is quite conspicuous in the English formulation. It lends an aura of shame to all other bodily inclinations. Does it make any sense to treat sex differently than eating, drinking or sleeping? Despite centuries of moral suspicion with regard to sexual contact in Western society, it is incontestable that sex is a core human function. It is remarkably similar to hunger, thirst and sleep. When you eat your fill, the last thing you want is more food. When you’ve slept enough, you can’t sleep any more. Similarly, after having sex, you don’t want more sex—at least for a while. This is the nature of bodily desire: It rises, satisfies itself, then subsides. Biologically, there is nothing shameful about it. That is just the way it works.

German “Lust” reflects a more candid relationship to the body than English “Lust.” In centuries past, English used the word “Lust” in much the same way as German does now. After all, in Middle English, “Lust” signified “pleasure, delight and appetite.” While those words can be linked to sex, they also have neutral associations. It is possible to take pleasure and delight in a meal or even a walk in the forest. German uses “Lust” in the same way. It neutrally expresses “what the body wants” at a particular moment. It might want to eat. It might want to go to the movies. It might want to sleep. Sex does not dominate the definition as it does in modern English. Over the centuries, English “Lust” took on a shameful aura that associated all bodily desires with sex. It is debatable whether sex should be deemed shameful at all, but there is no doubt that—in English, at least—it subordinated all other bodily impulses.

By understanding “Lust’s” German roots, we can better understand the “idea complex” concealed in the word. Historically speaking, “Lust” did not refer to shameful bodily desire; it referred to any bodily desire, including sex. With that in mind, we should regard the English word “Lust” as referring to the whole complex of bodily desires. It can be difficult to understand what the body tells us from moment to moment. Yet the word “Lust” helps us comprehend how changeable—and banal—the body truly is. One moment the body craves food. In another moment, it craves rest. At yet another moment, it yearns for a drink. These are “lusts” in the German sense: Inclinations to satisfy the body. Should we be ashamed? I don’t think so. We are, after all, composed of flesh, and flesh is like an insistent baby: It cries when it is hungry and laughs when it is having fun. Whether laughing or crying, we cannot ignore its demands. “Lust” refers to the body’s constant demands. Satisfying our lusts may not be intellectually stimulating, but we must satisfy them nonetheless. In my view, if we can understand them, they are easier to manage—and to appreciate them for what they are. Lusts do not stem from the soul. The soul does its own business. And the soul should not vex itself because the body pulls in different directions.