WHAT
IS A YIPPIE?
I like to think of myself as a yippie, perhaps the first of my kind, since I am
increasingly drawn towards words associated, actually or potentially, with the
Y-chromosome, which happens, as most adults will know, to be germane to males,
as, androgynous exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, a genetic inheritance
from one’s male ancestry. Thus a yippie is in some
sense a self-conscious or Y-conscious male who strongly identifies with his
male inheritance.
One thing, however, a yippie
is not is a transmuted or transformed yuppie.
He does not regard life from the perspective of wealth-generation, and
therefore has not gone out of his way to become rich or to identify himself
with money-making schemes, the likes of which clutter up the Internet with
brazen promises of wealth. On the
contrary, money for him is a kind of by-product of other things, not an
end-in-itself, and certainly anything but the basis of a business career. He does not believe in financial greed, least
of all in a time when such greed has led to recessionary problems the likes of
which few if any of us are unaffected by.
For him, money is a means to a higher end, one in the service of his
religious and ideological beliefs, and in this respect he resembles the hippies
of the late ‘60s who, as often as not, didn’t care about money at all.
But even if he would consider himself closer on
that account to hippies than to yuppies, he would have nothing in common with
their ethos of free love and dope-fuelled sexual promiscuity, nor would he be
partial to Eastern spirituality and the kind of mindless identification with
cosmic mysticism, of which the Clear Light of the Void would constitute a
salient aspect so dear to the likes of Huxley and other renegade Anglicans. To him, all that matters in religious terms
is transcendentalism, and he knows that transcendentalism is the opposite of
fundamentalism and no friend of pantheism or humanism either. Transcendentalism is the free-psychic or
church-hegemonic aspect of metaphysics, and metaphysics for him is
unequivocally universal, which is to say, as far removed from anything cosmic
(hyped as universe and/or universal) as it is possible to be – a universality
of global civilization destined for a sensibly cyborgistic
apotheosis or culmination in the not-so-distant future.
Therefore his view of life is intensely
artificial, which would again suggest a marked contrast with hippie indulgence
of nature and things natural, including sex.
Even his hair would not be long, like theirs, but more usually as short
as possible, as though significant of his artificial transcendence of natural
phenomena and the possibility if not actuality of being a kind of ‘sonofabitch’.
But if the yippie as
I define him is intensely, or synthetically, artificial, even in his drug
preferences for or projections into a ‘millennial future’, he is yet, like the
hippie, unconventional by majority standards, and thus closer in spirit to the
hippie social nonconformism (though not in terms of
communal promiscuity) than to the yuppie professional conformism, since for him
what really counts in life is culture and, hence, his metaphysical ideology,
which I have variously identified with Social Theocracy (political/state) and
Social Transcendentalism (religious/church).
The yippie is in some
sense a reborn and transmuted hippie, and thus a refutation, even if from a
vocational standpoint, of the careerist professionalism of his yuppie
predecessors. He doesn’t want to ‘do his
own thing’ independently of the world (of straights and squares, bitches and ‘sonsofbitches’) but, on the contrary, to triumph over the
world, and for this he requires a politico-religious ideology capable of
assuming power and delivering religion from the clutches of the state.
Therefore the yippie
has to be himself to others in order to influence them and make them aware of
the alternatives to the worldly status quo.
World-overcoming, to use a Nietzschean phrase,
is high on his list of ideological priorities, and therefore he will engage
with the world with a view to its Social Theocratic overcoming.
Finally, the yippie
is, not unlike the yuppie of the ‘80s, a ‘yes man’, but a ‘yes man’ for whom
the positivity of what could be called the ‘Yo-factor’ is incontrovertibly sacrosanct, since reflecting
his own Y-chromosomal essence. For this
reason he is a transvaluator rather than a devaluator, and will always side with the Y against the X,
especially against the XX of Eve-like female seductive persuasion, which was
the undoing of Adam and cause of the male ‘fall’ from grace and innocence into
worldly bondage, the very same bondage (to female persuasion) in which the
majority of non-yippie males still exist and will
continue to exist until the end of the world through Social Theocratic
overcoming, when they will be restored to godliness and, more importantly, to
the heavenly innocence of the ultimate ‘Garden’ – the Social
Theocratic/Transcendentalist Centre.
I am a yippie. I am for the ‘Yo-factor’. I am also enamoured of first names (surnames
can also count) beginning with Y – at least for males. And I am inevitably for Israel or, rather, Ysrael in its struggle to survive and eventually thrive
from the standpoint of an enhanced Y, a Y for which the myth of Eden is no
longer relevant because the attainment to a new metaphysical paradise will put
an end to worldly suffering and allow the transfigured to ascend into the
heavenly bliss of metaphysical grace (coupled state-subordinately to wisdom on
a lesser ratio basis) or into the pseudo-hellish torment of pseudo-metachemical pseudo-punishment (coupled state-subordinately
to pseudo-goodness on a greater ratio basis), depending on gender.
For the opposite of a Y brought low by an XX is
an XX kept down by a triumphant Y. This
is ultimately what really distinguishes a yippie from
a hippie.