No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Make Up
Seven people were asked their opinion in a column called "Room For Debate," liars, there was no debate, all of them said "I guess so", their main contribution was the hedge: "it's a woman's choice." So while pretending this was some kind of debate with contrasting opinions, all of them had the same opinion, which should automatically signal to you it is the wrong one.
When they say, "it's a woman's choice" what they mean is "it's not a man's choice, it is thoroughly stupid to wear make up just for men, the only acceptable reason is if you do it for yourself, if it makes you feel better about yourself."
Let me offer a contrary position, unpalatable but worth considering: the only appropriate time to wear make up is to look attractive to men. Or women, depending on which genitals you want to lick, hopefully it's both. "Ugh, women are not objects." Then why are you painting them? I'm not saying you have to look good for men, I'm saying that if wearing makeup not for men makes you feel better about yourself, you don't have a strong self, and no, yelling won't change this. Everyone knows you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, now you're saying the cover of the book influences how the book feels about itself?
I am not doubting that in fact you do feel better about yourself, I am saying that that fact is both pathological and totally on purpose. Since this cognitive trick does help you feel better about yourself, by all means go ahead, but at what point will you stop pressuring other women to go along with it? When will you stop "requiring" it, like when you say, "oh, she's so pretty even without makeup" as if the default was makeup?
The fraud women now believe is that it is wrong to look good for men only, as an end in itself; the progressive delusion is that looking good for men is synonymous with submissiveness, so while you're allowed to look good to men, it should always be secondary to looking good for yourself. This is madness. You are enhancing your outward appearance, which is great, but then you pretend it's for internal reasons?
How would you like to live in a world where men had to wear make up? "Oh, I love make up on a guy, especially eyeliner." Of course you do, you're having a stroke. Ask it this way: how would you like to be in a world where men said," oh, I feel so much better about myself when I'm wearing makeup." You'd run for the nearest totalitarian regime.
The trick to the makeup debate is that it pretends to want to be free of male pressure, yet the pressure to look a certain way is actually much worse from women. So this result is that a "patriarchical", controlling force, unacceptable if coming directly from men, is maintained by giving the whip to other women. No boss man would survive if he said, "ugh, you should put on some makeup, doll yourself up a little bit" but women say this to other women all the time-- especially at work. "You look really tired," says a woman in MAC Greensmoke to another who isn't. Just once I wish the reply would be, "I am, your husband kept me up all night." Not very progressive, but hilarious.
The evolution from "enhances sexual attractiveness" to "doing it for yourself" is definitely a regressive step, and by regressive I here mean "regressing to age two", but it's the next step which reveals the presence of a neurosis: recruiting science as a justification for behavior: "Study finds makeup makes you appear more competent." Can't wait to read about that study in a Jonah Lehrer book. Ugh. So here's the evolution of feminist theory, take notes: "I want to look better" to "I want to feel better about myself" to "I want people to think I am better." Madness.
The further clue that the problem is not gender but... you... is that you find this pseudoscience while you are browsing the internet, i.e. it is your entertainment, your free time; your leisure time is spent justifying a behavior you can't not do. "But I wasn't looking for those articles, I just stumbled on them." Exactly.
The reason the makeup debate is insoluble is that it's not yours to solute. The choice to wear makeup is no choice at all, I know you think you came to it on your own but you live in America, you don't make free choices here, freedom is a brand. Makeup is an $8B/yr industry, that's face makeup alone, no way is it going to allow you to make a choice that doesn't involve a credit card, fine, if you don't like makeup here's a remover for $30, just remember that you're not doing it for men, you're doing it for yourself.
II.
I had used all the porn on the internet, so I turn on the TV, and there's a marionette called Diane Sawyer interviewing 20 female Senators, the most in history, applauding and giggling as if cold fusion had finally been discovered. Of course it's a "good thing" that women are Senators in as much as not allowing them to be Senators is the bad thing, but other than that, what does it mean? That women are finally brave enough to run, or America is brave enough to hire them? It's not like the Capitol Building was turning them away, so why is this important? I knew I was being scammed because I was being told this was a historic accomplishment by the ABC Network. The ABC demo is not ever going to be a Senator, I would bet ten bazillion dollars they couldn't even name one of their Senators and a gazillion bazillion dollars they have no real idea what Senators do, so why is this on prime time ABC?
I think the answer is supposed to be, "it's empowering to women", but you should wonder: when more women enter a field, it means less men did, and if the men stopped going there, where did they go? Why did they leave? I assume they aren't home with the kids, right?
I don't want to be cynical, but boy oh boy is it hard not to observe that at the very moment in our history when we have the most women in the Senate, Congress is perceived to be pathetic, bickering, easily manipulated and powerless, and I'll risk the blowback and say that those are all stereotypes of women. Easy, HuffPo, I know it's not causal, I am saying the reverse: that if some field keeps the trappings of power but loses actual power, women enter it in droves and men abandon it like the Roanoke Colony. Again we must ask the question: if power seeking men aren't running for Senate, where did they go? Meanwhile all the lobbyists and Wall Street bankers are men, isn't that odd? "Women aren't as corrupt or money hungry." Yes, that's been my experience with women as well.
This works in reverse, too, take a field traditionally XX-only, like nursing, and, huh, what do you know-- at the time where nursing is more powerful than it has ever been, there are also more XY in it than ever. But who made it more powerful? It wasn't nurses. And if you're playing that game, ask if the reason "sexy nurses" as a fetish dropped out somewhere around the 90s had nothing to do with females finally getting control over their sexualization but exactly the opposite, men came in and unsexualized the joint. "I'm not gay." Easy, Focker, no one was implying anything.
I know to a woman it must feel good, "yay, I'm a Senator!" and I do not minimize the individual accomplishment of a woman becoming a Senator. But for everyone else, what is the significance? One of the Yay-Women senators suggested that the government would benefit from all the makeup because "women's styles tend to be more collaborative," and at the exact same moment she repeated the conventional wisdom's horrendous banality she simultaneously got married to the head of a lobbying firm. That's progress, I guess.
The problem isn't with women in the Senate, but rather its celebration, which these dummies blindly participate in. Is it putting on a face for the American public, the way the first face I see on Goldman Sachs's website is a black woman? Is it cosmetic? She's probably proud, she should be proud, that she made it to GS, but for the rest of blacks and women, what is the significance? It may be regressive to ask this, but it is illuminating: "hey.... why did they let so many of us in?"
This is part of a larger, systemic problem with the way power has shifted not from Group A to Group B, but from ground up to top down, and top down works in a very specific way: it concedes the trappings of power while it retains the actual power.
III.
In this case, you are seeing a shift of power be repackaged as a gender battle. And it's quite apparent that power is a generation or so ahead of you, so in 1990 a 40 year old who grew up around successful lawyers then says to his 5 year old, "daughter, you should become a lawyer!" and she probably at one point collaborates to decry the lack of female role models, and then by the time she graduates law school she discovers she's a dime a dozen, power has been withdrawn, one step ahead; and at this rate I fully expect 2013's Aspirational 14% to nudge their 5 year old daughters towards investment banking so they can be part of the big Women In Investment Banking conference of 2033. Don't bother, it'll be in Newark.
I can't predict the next field of power, I'm happy to hear your projections, the point for now is that while power moves ahead of you and your family, it leaves behind the appearance of a gender (or racial) struggle; and the immediate result of this is that people consider it a societal achievement that they are merely playing, even if what they are doing is ultimately meaningless. So while women (appropriately) fought for, and got, equal access to college educations-- and now women even outnumber men in colleges-- today we find that college is irrelevant. Huh. NB: what women did not fight for, and this is to my point, is the specific power of being taken seriously without a college education. "But how will the world know we're equal?"
The focus here, again, is why did/do women fight so much for what became irrelevant? Why does this happen all the time? More specifically, did they pursue it because they thought it had power, or did they pursue it because it had the trappings of power? I'm not being a jerk, it is a deadly serious question. If some dentist fires his hygenist because she's too pretty the United States Of America goes to Defcon 1, but if Goldman Sachs doesn't hire enough women some idiot at The Atlantic writes a fluff piece. "They apparently have a sexist culture there." You know they rule the world, right?
I know, I know, women get paid less then men. Sigh. There are a million reasons for this, but the most important is the simplest: some people want to get more money from the job, and some other people want the job to offer them more money, and they are not the same people. Typically the former is men and the latter is women, but the point isn't gender but the mindset: the latter group wants the job to want to pay them more, they don't want to have to have any input in deciding their own reimbursement. I have this conversation with women a lot, every time it goes exactly like this:
Her: They only offered me $X.
Me: Why didn't you ask for more?
Her: I don't know... I was just happy to get the job.
And I throw up my hands, nothing I say will convince this senator to try harder for herself. I have this same conversation with men as well, less frequently but not never, though the conversation is slightly different:
Him: They only offered me $X.
Me: Why didn't you ask for more?
Him: I don't know... I was just happy to get the job.
Me: What are you, a girl?
Works every time.
IV.
Everything you need to know about how the system sees you is expressed in its purest way in ads. So, completely off topic, here's an ad, relax, this has nothing to do with guns:
I had never seen this ad, because the ad was not for me. The ad targets men who need a gun to feel like a real man, the gun validates their masculinity-- or so the ordinary, pseudo-feminist deconstruction would go. Except that's not what the ad says. It says, quite clearly, that the highest validator of masculinity isn't the gun, it is the card.
You've been trained to look at these things in terms of gender, forget it, the pathology of the generation is narcissism, the ad knows about, and works only on, a society eyeballs deep in narcissism, that requires its identity broadcast by branded objects but validated by other people. Because what this ad says, explicitly, is that owning the gun doesn't make you a man; when you own the gun, some other omnipotent entity will declare you a man.
I'm not saying that gun owners need to show their guns off, I'm saying this ad assumes that. There was a time where merely possessing the fetishized object was enough to self-identify ("I'm awesome, I'm having sex with a blonde"; "just having my 9mm inside my jacket makes me feel bad ass"), but this is no longer sufficient, it is no longer powerful enough to penetrate your thick skull, you have to be able to show it to someone else, to watch their eyes light up in recognition for you to know you have convinced them of who you are.
Is it cosmetic? Note the logic has evolved from "you'll feel better about yourself" to "other people will see you as more competent."
Forget about the gun/masculinity interaction, it is a red herring; the problem is the cycle of wanting outsiders to tell you who you are, which is why empty celebrity works just as well as accomplished celebrity, which is why you can't tell if Kanye West is downgrading to Kim Kardashian or she is downgrading to him.
But right on cue, the most deluded of women, not just a feminist but a self-proclaimed "feminist evangelist," showed up and completely missed the point, so she changed what was a clear example of the generational pathology of narcissism, and repackaged it as a gender issue:
"We?" As in, "we at Feministing?"
If you follow that the consumer unconsciously understands that his masculinity is approved from the outside, by other people, then Valenti is the very person that the ad is arguing against: "these bitches think you're not a man. We at Busmaster tell you differently. Who are you going to believe?" Hell, I'lI believe a Sleestak before I listen to Jessica Valenti, really, those are my only two choices? The ad had no effect on me; her tweet makes me want to join a militia.
Note she doesn't really want to discuss it, she assumes it's self-explanatory, as if the very fact that masculinity and guns are related is itself bad, as if the solution was to uncouple the two. But what would happen next? The problem, as above, isn't the gun but the need for external validation, which means if you take the gun away something else must replace it, and it won't be what works for her, e.g. exposed brick and that great show Girls. "It's great!" It's horrendous.
V.
To understand exactly why "feminism" or whatever Valenti thinks she has re-invented has not only stalled, but is damaging to all humanity, all you need to do is go to the source. Totally at random, I went to Huffington Post Women. Let's see what the feminists are up to, here are the top five articles:
1. The Reason The Academy Passed On Kathryn Bigelow (answer: sexism.)
2. Confessions Of A Mistress (protip: "Here's the wisdom I can offer to mistresses out there: do not get too attached.")
3. Why You Should Be Nervous-- And Yet Not-- About Sunday Night (since the Golden Globes conflict with Girls, just DVR Girls, and anyway Lena Dunham will be at the Globes.)
4. 'Girls' Star Talks Nudity And Season 2 (I refused to even click it)
5. Meet The Woman Who's Only Eating From Starbucks
Look, it's easy to make fun of these articles, my point isn't that sometimes women read nonsense. The point here is that they are branded as for women, this is what the Huffington Post Women thinks of women, they suspect, apparently rightly, that women will respond better to these articles if they are told they are "For Women."
Here's a quote from #5, the woman who is eating Starbucks for a year:
So how can eating only one company's products impact me, anybody? Well Mr. McDonald's already proved that question years ago with his documentary and Mr. Subway did his take on the loosing weight portion of the food challenges too. But when I watched those guys doing their thing I asked myself "where are the WOMEN challenging themselves in the world?" "Where are the effects being shown on a woman's culture? A woman's family & children? A woman's diet, weight, fashion, checkbook, community and world through challenges?" "Where is HER VOICE on how an international company is directly or indirectly impacting everything from her waistline to her bottom line and every other woman's, man's, child's, societies and planets world with their presence?"
What's crazy about this crazy person is that she's crazy, if she did this in the name of her own psychopathology we could happily ignore her, but she's doing this for women, she's saying it's for women, when what you want to say is, "you know this makes people hate women, right?" Mr. McDonalds didn't do it for men, or even as a man, he just did it, why do you have to drag the rest of the women into your delusions?
But this is the kind of solidarity popularized by Lori Gottlieb and the rest-- and I am asking, at what expense? Sites like Jezebel and Feministing are much, much worse than pornography, every article they write sets women back a week, do the math, they do such a disservice to women because they take their narcissism and repackage it as gender issues, and you're locked into it. What if I don't think gun control is a gender issue? What if watching Girls makes me want to make a snuff film? To use your impossible language, "where is my safe space to challenge your privilege?"
My point isn't that women don't have legitimate gripes with the system, or that there isn't sexism still around, my point is that most of what you think is "feminism" is really a work, a gimmick, a marketing scheme. It is straight up consumerism, repackaged as a gender issue. Case in point: season 1 and 2 of Girls.
And most importantly of all: if this is what women's solidarity is made of, how much support can they really expect from each other? Is this solidarity power, or the trappings of power? "Did you see Girls last night?" No, I'm sorry, I was being raped. "Oh, too bad. It was a good one."
VI.
In Django Unchained, evil slaveowner Leonardo DiCaprio asks a question. Sorry, back up: why does everyone call him an evil slaveowner? As far as I can tell, he was a pretty average slaveowner, I'd even say he was "kind", in the sense that all his slaves "like" him, and he rarely "tortures" anyone and by the use of quotes you can see I'm hedging, my point here is how quickly people have to broadcast their indignancy. "He's evil." So what you're saying is you're against slavery? Thanks for clarifying.
This explains the near-universal anxiety over the movie's frequent use of the word nigger, and someone asked Tarantino if he thought he had used it too much in the movie, and his response was perfect: "too much, in comparison to how much it was used back then?" Nigger, and the violence, was all anyone was upset about. Terry Gross, NPR's mental Fleshlight, asked Tarantino her typically insightful and nuanced questions: "do you enjoy violent movies less after what happened at Sandy Hook?" Sigh. So there's the Terry Gross checklist for reviewing Django: gun=bad and saying nigger=bad. Check and check. You know what no one thought badworthy? When the white guy asked to have a certain slave sent to his room to try out her ample vagina, and the prim white lady of the house happily escorted her up. "Go on, do what you're told, girl."
I'd venture that Terry Gross and and the gang at HuffPoWo would rather be whipped than be-- that's rape, right?-- but that scene didn't light up their amygdalas, only hearing "nigger" did. I find that highly suspicious, or astoundingly obtuse, or both.
Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: "Why don't they just rise up?"
Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius. That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn't his country, he doesn't really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it's completely legitimate for a guy who doesn't know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven't yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don't think to ask this? But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don't rise up is that he-- that system-- taught them not to. When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.
If "the system tells you what to do" doesn't seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED. Why did Django rise up? He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes. How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check? Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?
"The dentist freed him." So? Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings. "He's 'one in ten thousand'?" Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart. "He got a gun?" Doesn't help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren't free. No. You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to. He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people. That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life. His powers were on loan, he wasn't even a vassal, he was a tool.
This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man. But for the other slaves, what is the significance?
Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner's question has a hidden, repressed dark side: DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn't own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that's the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery-- trying to rationalize what he is doing. That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident... do you see? "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?" And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception. 1 in 10000, I guess. And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what's been repressed-- how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier "evil" to "slaveowner" if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then? "But at least I wouldn't be evil." Keep telling yourself that. And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot? You'd say what everybody says, "look wildman, don't ask me, that's just the system. Can't change it. Want to rape a black chick?"
IV.
Speaking of no one being upset about rape, here's a story, starts out bad and gets even worse in ways you won't expect: a 16 year old girl is passed out drunk at a party, she is then allegedly raped by a/two high school football players, and carried unconscious to other parties and displayed and/or raped, and apparently because the town has a "football culture" no arrests are made, it's hushed up, the boys are protected, and I think to myself, oh, that's weird, is that town still in 1986? True story: in 1986, at a mixer at the Delta Gamma sorority house, Lacoste Football Guy gets hard for 16 year old sister of Benetton Girl, and in order to get her jeans off he hits her in the head with a lamp, so in order to keep her jeans on she kicks him in the mouth, and through the blood and fury he's screaming he'll sue her, do you know who my father is? NB: he went on to become a lawyer and no I am not making that up.
"Ugh, even now, 25 years later, it's still a hypermasculine rape culture." Ha! No. Hypermasculine? Where are you, the Dominican? No, what's amazing/obvious is how after 25 years of Diane Sawyer and makeup debates, not one other girl at this party came to the victim's aid; not one girl saw what was happening at the party and simultaneously called 911 and Facetimed the crime; not one girl called all the women she knew and brought the wrath of Athena down on that town. Nope. Nothing. A lot of laughing and giggling though, turns out rape is funny, someone owes Daniel Tosh a huge apology. "Women's styles tend to be more collaborative." I can tell, they collaborated to keep their mouth shut. In 1986 the sorority girls also collaborated to blame the victim for for being so rough with Lacoste Guy: "How could you do that to him? His face is like, totally corroded." Hey, come on, look how he was dressed, he was asking for it.
"We need more women in power." Wrong preposition, dummy, but anyway you have them. You have judges and prosecutors and twenty female senators, what has it gotten you? Your own ground floor women don't protect each other, you know who had to come to this teen's aid? Anonymous. Men.
Of course I don't know if the boys really did these things or not, ok? But if the reason the boys were protected was the "football culture," that means people in the town were taught to protect them. And if the girls did nothing, it means they were taught to do nothing, and the people most responsible for that lesson was other women.
"No, the town was corrupt, they swept these kinds of things under the rug for years." If you've known for years the town isn't going to help women, if you've known for years it's a "hypermasculine rape culture," wouldn't that make women want to stick together more?
It's not like these teen girls were denied an education or had to endure sexual harrassment at work or had to go to Sweden to get abortions, if there was ever a generation that should feel most empowered it would be them, yet they-- not just one of them; all of them-- "knew", somehow, that they could/should do nothing. Which means that they were taught that from somewhere, and the only place that it could have come was older women. "The other lesson is: makeup is a choice." Today I learned nothing.
There's your female empowerment, there's you feminist progress, catastrophically subverted from the top down, like it's in an abusive relationship, satisfied with the house and the car and the 4/7 good days and simply doesn't want to rock the boat so it expends frantic energy on what is ultimately nonsense. Every stupid parent teaches their girls not to get raped, duh, but have any mothers spent any time indoctrinating their daughters what to do if another woman is being raped? Have they made it a reflex to defend, to attack? "Isn't that obvious?" Ask the town. "We need to support each other!" sure, as long as it's from the safety of a computer monitor or a 5K, yay women. Have you explicitly told your daughters that if a woman is passed out drunk and you see a Notre Dame Hat climbing over her couch, it is your responsibility to grab an aerosol can and a lighter and threaten Armageddon, or at the very least yell stop? "Well, that's kind of dangerous." Yeah, that's kind of the point, but I grant you that it's safer to giggle and let boys be boys. Do you want power, or the trappings of power? Somebody's going to have it, you can't make it vanish. I wasn't at this particular rape, the town's defense amazingly appears to be she was a slut and she was asking for it, and my point is: so what? Why didn't the other women stop it anyway? Why didn't they just rise up?
http://twitter.com/thelastpsych
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
January 15, 2013 2:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I desperately want to share this article with everyone I know, but I know that not one of them will go to the trouble of reading it (and every one of them will judge it based on the title). So continues the status quo.
I think I'll share it anyways, but first,
I need a drink.
Score: 305 (329 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 2:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
And now after you have read this and want to comment on how wrong all of it is, think of the news out of India in the past few weeks.
I think there have been 2 more bus rapes since then? How many more stories with no solutions whatsoever will we have to endure until the media interest dies down? Is Laura Logan already on the case?
"Porn is perverting young males" Yes, sure. Every answer counts as long as you don't actually have to look at yourself.
Score: 70 (90 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 3:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
1. The next field of power is software engineering, i.e. making human beings obsolete by automating everything they can do: create things, kill things, find things etc. It's also dominated almost entirely by men. There won't be a new field of power after that.
2. You seem to have a good enough understanding of the system to realize why publishing your thoughts is actually a very bad idea. So why do you still keep this blog open?
Score: -24 (194 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 3:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
In other news, our black guy obviously and easily won another four years. see, there's no racism.
Score: 26 (84 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 3:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The system is not afraid of this blog at all. Big lies aren't threatened by truth, they're only threatened by more effective lies.
Score: 182 (196 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 3:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm pretty sure the point of this entire blog is that the status quo is going to go on no matter how many people you share this with. What changed for you when you realized the world was awful? Another drink? Great, come back next week, alcohol is a Xbillion dollar industry, etc., here comes the blog post.
Score: 76 (94 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 4:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I wonder what kind of stories the people that watched the rape tell themselves, to the point that the passed out drunken girl being raped becomes seen as "asking for it", and that they couldn't do anything to stop it.
Score: 58 (66 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 4:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice job at sounding like alone (I gave you a + for that). I actually just made that post as an experiment for my own amusement. Apparently talking about how much the world sucks and saying you want to drink yourself to an early grave get a lot of +1s. I don't drink and I never shared it (both because it won't matter and because he made a snuff porn joke...), but nice response. Respect.
Score: -29 (67 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 4:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I feel exactly the same. :(
Score: -12 (20 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 5:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
great article. I'm sure many people will not be able to read past the "nigger" (WHAT IS THIS RACISM? I OWE AN EXPLANATION!) and the "sexism". I bet someone will tell you your theories are wrong because they do not coincide with feminist theories, as that was enough of an explanation.
Score: 24 (50 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I just want to thank you for letting us read this.
Score: 80 (98 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 8:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"I'm pretty sure the point of this entire blog is that the status quo is going to go on no matter how many people you share this with. What changed for you when you realized the world was awful? Another drink? Great, come back next week, alcohol is a Xbillion dollar industry, etc., here comes the blo…"
Yeah, and yet here you are, putting a great deal of time into this blog for some reason. So I'm going to go ahead and share it anyway, because it's a thing to do while waiting for economic collapse and I'm glad someone shared your blog with me. Fuck you.
I'm XX, and I wish more feminism sounded like this article instead of whining about how men aren't handing out enough power to women, as if that's how power worked. Thank you for sharing it.
Score: 145 (171 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 8:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Yikes.
Crazy powerful article.
Score: 45 (55 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 9:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh so many gems here. Fantastic post, lots of laughter covering the very insightful observations. Thanks for posting it.
Score: 28 (40 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 9:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'd like to urge people to consider donating even a dollar when they read such gems (anywhere in the blogosophere). I've gotten many hours of enjoyment out of reading this blog, and it's been well worth the paltry sum I've donated. (Hey, paltry is better than nothing, which is what we've grown accustomed to.)
Score: 39 (51 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 9:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Brilliant post, thank you for it.
I don't think feminism as a philosophy is *necessarily* bankrupt, but what I've taken away from what you've written about it is that there is a failure on the movement's part to hold women (who are part of the "movement" and who are not) accountable. See: Girls, etc.
Score: 21 (33 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 9:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I do not totally agree with TLP's hypothesis: that women are somehow brainwashed to be powerless. And, absent said social brainwashing, women would act more like men i.e. with independence and self-virtue.
Rather, I see in women an innate preoccupation with and loyalty to a smaller group i.e. family, clique, or personal ambition over a wider moral or civic duty to outside groups. Women seem more ready than men to rationalize, minimize, and willfully ignore some moral evil, i.e. rape or sexism, if it means protecting the group, their group. Call it the maternal instinct if you'd like, but it is part of women for better or for worse. Unchecked, it can lead to increased infighting and unfairness.
Perhaps a correlation may be drawn to the modern absence of social cohesion and civic virtue with more women occupying positions of power and influence, or TLP's "trappings of power."
The larger house is divided when the women's bathroom in the mezzanine level is at war with the women's bathroom on the third floor.
Score: -2 (134 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 9:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
i know i'm responding before i read all the comments, but i'm a black woman and a feminist and i want to stand up and cheer for pretty much everything in this article.
not sure where this is in the chronology of people getting upset about your sarcasm, but it's pitch perfect here.
when i was 17-25 i wore no makeup, wore baggy clothes and didn't shave because that seemed right. i had never really done those things, besides shaving, because i was religious and didn't want boys looking at me with lust anyway. i was a hetero chick fronting a band and correctly surmised that every guy who thought they liked me did so because i was in a band. heheheh
but if nothing else, it gave some female fans a place to feel like they didn't have to do that stuff.
now, as a single mom, i do wear makeup and shave and wear clothes that fit. it's totally to attract men. it also makes the people for whom i am their token black friend nervous. hehehe.
i know it's evil to think it's funny when someone who thought i was their sidekick sees me in jeans and a shirt that fit and with some mascara on and visibly begins to sweat and look for the exit.
i'm laughing right now. you see women be catty with each other, but until you get in the ring, you never catch any blows. or throw any. in a way, this makes me part of something horrible. in a way, this helps me to get laid.
i justify it by knowing i would never date a man who didn't shave or who was morbidly obese, so why shouldn't i shave and wear makeup. i *want* to attract men. i want the societal benefits of being attractive. i want to put off competitive women. it just works for me.
i do think it's important to have women and black people and gay people in government or any positions of power, even when they are unwittingly supporting the structures that can oppress them. i think these things change over time. at least in my lifetime they seem to be changing for the better, just slow as christmas.
Score: 134 (192 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you so much for posting this... =)
Score: 2 (20 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you mean, you need a toke. Smoke that weed all day, everyday!!!
Score: -28 (46 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Feminism doesn't want to give up female priviledge. What is female priveledge? Mostly its "freedom from." Freedom from responsibility. Freedom from moral agency. Freedom from the worst outcomes in life. There is a floor under women, that's where the cieling comes from.
If you want to get rid of the cieling you've got to change who you are. That often means taking on the kinds of responsibilities and risks that men have accepted to gain their own priviledges. Feminism has only ever played around the margins. It takes its digs where it can, but ultimately it doesn't want to lose its female priviledges. Nothing risked, nothing gained. Input evolutionary psychology reasoning here.
Score: 6 (192 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think that's what's being said. What I think is happening is that essentially, we only open the doors to "power" after the power leaves. In the 1950's when Government was relevent, no one would have dreamed of trusting a woman or a black man with "leadership of the free world" -- that only happened after the power had shifted away from government in the late 1980's or so, when the power to unilaterally run the world shifted to banks and megacorps. Now, since congress and the president can do little beyond reshuffle the money that isn't offshored or tax-sheltered, it's OK for blacks and women to do those jobs.
It's pretty much the way it's always been. Teachers were male when education was high powered -- back in the middle ages or whatever, no one would have dreamed of a woman teaching. Women were nurses until health care became an in demand field, which is about when men discovered that they like wiping asses. Women are taking over retail to a degree, especially middle management because it's not something that you could do much with.
It's not about "women don't like power" so much as "people don't trust women with power". It sounds the same, and the practical results are the same, but it's different. Unless you own the business, there are gatekeepers. In the case of the Senate, we have elections, in the case of businesses, there are job interviews. And for whatever reason, people don't want women to run things that matter. Consider the reconstruction era -- we had black senators back then, what did we do but make that illegal as soon as we could? Why? Because congress, back then, mattered. So we couldn't let blacks into congress.
Score: 92 (116 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What makes you think Anonymous are men??? There are a lot of women among them, please watch "We Are Legion". Otherwise a fine article!
Score: -6 (74 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Woh, this made me realize that pastors are now becoming female in more and more branches of organized religion...
Score: 69 (71 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Women wear makeup for two reasons only - power and competition. I should really say power through competition. Makeup and everything we do to enhance our looks is about accumulating power and competing with other women and obtaining power over men. Makeup is a weapon in our arsenal that we may or may not utilize. For the most part we aren't even all that interested in having sex most of the time - we just want the option. We want men to want to have sex with us and do stuff for us. We want other women to know that we can have sex with men and get them to do stuff for us. Score, bitches. Women's appreciation for this competition and this type of power is usually directly proportional to their ability to successfully compete. There are exceptions-but few.
Most women who don't wear makeup have opted out of the competition. Some because they were never going to win under any circumstance and taking the high ground of anti-superficiality strokes their ego. Others aren't out of the competition they just don't need that particular weapon to compete. They have other significant assets that compensate.
Women obtain power and compete in other ways, of course. But sexual attraction is embedded in our DNA and that’s why you’ll find older women – long past the need to sexually attract- who still do themselves up. See, I’m still a player. They’re equivalent to an old athlete no longer competing who still shows up to games dressed in his track suit. Its signals that we are or once were – players.
Lastly, to those with great power comes great responsibility, as Spiderman would say.
Score: 105 (173 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
stacy, you're right on. i do like to look at pretty shit, and makeup makes some people prettier. some people i don't want to get on, who i just like to look at.
i definitely wear makeup for male attention and to take advantage of the privileges it affords me.
i also point out that i'm NOT pretty enough to have an easy way in this world in terms of sex or anything else in baggy clothes, and unshaved and with no makeup.
that is a fact.
Score: 4 (22 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Gods be good, your articles have been a light in the vast ocean that is the sea of information. Your article on "Hipsters on Food Stamps" and this one have been the best articles I've read in 2012-2013. This is the shit I look for when I parse the news, this is what I look for when I want meaningful philosophy. Your articles at times reads as a combination of Hunter S Thompson, Julia Kristeva and Gary Trudeau. The way you explained the way the system shifts the balance of power around like a game of monkey in the middle sounded like something my favorite teacher would have said. I have so much to say about how much I loved your articles so I'll just conclude with thank you, thank you so much for writing and please don't ever stop
Score: 50 (56 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You're wrong about "Girls." It actually satirizes, and then humanizes, the narcissists that make up New York women in their early 20's. There's a real journey in this show from total abject narcissism to real attempts to connect and learn how to be in relationship.
The phrase I came up with was, if you don't think "Girls" is funny, they're making fun of you.
Score: -41 (109 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
'Busmaster' - great typo, or greatest typo?
Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Narcissism or neediness? Or are they at root the same thing, self?
>>>When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.
But disobedience is still being framed *by the system.*
Score: 17 (19 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Rather, I see in women an innate preoccupation with and loyalty to a smaller group i.e. family, clique, or personal ambition over a wider moral or civic duty to outside groups [etc]Although I agree with you here, how can we say for certain that this is an inherent characteristic of women vs. how they are raised by their society?
Score: 30 (40 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
i don't think girls is funny, and i know they're making fun of me. girls like that have made fun of me my whole life. maybe i'd be cooler if i could get with the layered nuanced irony of how it's actually a sincere journey...i just think it's stuck up rich white girls being assholes. which is what i thought in school. they're mean people. they're shallow people. their lives are meaningless.
Score: 81 (99 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Why don't they just rise up?" ... "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?"
Two questions, one of them challenging reality. (Both of them actually. I would not have bothered to ask the first one either.)
I understand that the answer probably lays somewhere between escaping your context and drawing, but ever since the last post I've been wondering: "how does one find question that challenge reality?"
But I suspect actions determines experience, which informs context, hence...
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 12:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What? No comments on the scribbled "CROATOAN" on the image at the top of the article? I'm disappointed TLP clones.
We are heading into the sewers and you don't notice the crudely written signal?
; )
Score: 21 (25 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 12:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you think Jamie Dimon or Howard Schulz or Indra Nooyi have more power than the POTUS, Reid, or Bernanke you are simply batshit crazy.
Score: -6 (32 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 12:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Believe in some kind of progress of humanity is a kind of religion, it isn't?
Score: 4 (18 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 12:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Fans of 'Repent, Harlequin! said the Ticktockman' didn't want to spoil it for the n00bs.
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 12:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
From Wiki: the word "Croatoan" carved into a tree on Roanoke Island at the site of the Lost Colony in 1590
Lost Colony=lost civilization
I get it, I think.
Score: 2 (18 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 12:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The short story is about taking personal responsibility (again according to Wiki), so that is applicable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatoan_(Ellison)
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 12:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Obama, Reid, and Bernanke are men.
Have we had a female president, senate majority leader, or Fed chief?
Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, right? Obviously, TLP is wrong about women not really being in positions of the highest power because we all know how incredibly powerful the House is, right?
Want to know why we have so many czars and special envoys in government? Because cabinet positions in the executive branch are powerless and ceremonial. Do we and have we had women in cabinet positions? Yes, many. How many women have been czars or special envoys? None.
Score: 2 (28 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 12:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ugh for fucking once it would be nice to read a TLP post where Alone isn't a total superior, judgmental healthier-than-thou hypocrite. This level of judgment and critique is just a gleaming example of his own unchecked narcissism. It would be an added bonus if, for once, Alone looked in the mirror himself and admitted that he, too, is just as guilty as the rest of us.
Score: -35 (127 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 1:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
i don't accept the guilt, but i like the point of view, snarky style, and occasionally original thinking. obviously (to me) some of these rantings are of the armchair variety and have not been taken to the street. not always tempered with compassion or the ability to see other parts of issues.
"everyone sucks and is stupid. i win." that's one approach. still, he says some awesome shit and has an interesting turn of mind, even if some of the motivations are colored by self-hatred.
Score: 37 (45 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 2:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is a response not to the article but to some of the commentators who have been only too happy to take the meaning of the article and twist it around.
It's very easy to sit in a position of power and blame victims of discrimination for not doing enough. If women want more power they should act more like men, if coloured people want more power they should act more white and if poor people want a better life they should just get a job like the rest of us. Right? isn't that essentially what some of you are saying?
You act as though upbringing and a history of systematic oppression has no effect on a person. Women are taught from an early age that power isn't becoming of a woman. We're taught that men like women who are kind not women who are successful. If you don't believe me, look at how often popular culture paints women in power as evil witches and temptresses, and generally horrible human beings. What is shown to be important to woman? Friendship and family. Give up your dreams and your ambitions because love is more important than anything.
The chains aren't visible but they're there. We're all trapped by our mental conditioning even if we appear free. Positive change is possible and it's happening but we need to stop acting like people can just change their circumstances without any sort of help.
Score: 82 (138 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 2:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Asking why slaves didn't rise up is like asking why prisoners don't. They outnumber the guards, after all. So are they just mentally conditioned by the system to sit tight? Or are they deterred by the metal bars, armed guards, security systems, chained gates, and x billion humans willing to act as watchdogs?
Lots of amazing insight here as usual, but maybe don't use slavery as an example in your next "the problem is you" exposé.
Score: 31 (69 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 2:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So, I don't understand. What is the separation between the trappings of power and power itself? How is it defined?
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 2:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm pretty sure that one of the major sub-texts and in-jokes of Alone's posts are that he is just as big a piece of shit as the rest of us and works in an industry he repeatedly points to as being a major element of the problem he is trying to elucidate.
Score: 37 (49 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 3:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry about your childhood. I think you may be confusing your inferiority complex with someone else's narcissism, and I can't really help you with that.
On the plus side, you can (if you like) take some solace in the fact that the people who make the show "Girls" probably identify more with you than you would believe.
Score: -38 (58 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 3:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i don't feel inferior. thank you for your compassion. i honestly have enough self obsessed rich white girls in my life. i love them, but their problems are boring and bullshit and of their own creation. i get enough entertainment from them, but it's pretty much just sad. gotta laugh or cry.
Score: 31 (41 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 3:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I have to ask: Is there anything we can do to stop the gears of the machine? Or are we only limited to ourselves and should focus on improving ourselves in every way possible?
Score: 21 (21 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 4:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stacy,
Another way to look at it is this (and "I don't get it" -- a response that applies to your question):
Have power today (and have always had it):
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Used to have power (now only have the trappings of power):
Secretary of State
UN Ambassador
Can't speak to the Speaker of the House; I'm not a Washington wonk -- but Speaker today seems more like chief cat herder (with the post-Watergate breakdown in party strength, individuals don't have to be particularly loyal to the "party" and once elected, representatives are almost never contested by another party member).
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 4:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When was the last time that it fecking mattered who was speaker of the house or senate. Forget the titles, they don't mean anything. Boener is Republican Majority Leader, he can't even get Republicans to agree to live by a pledge that he didn't even write. Speakers are figureheads, which is why the gatekeepers are letting women have the role. If you ever see a real woman able to make even minor changes to "the Matrix" let me know. Speakers, Majority and Minority leaders in the congress have no more real power than the leader of the local Phi Kappa Delta on a 3rd tier college campus.
I don't say that to be snarky or to be down on Ms. Pelosi, but just pointing out that she's mostly a figurehead. If you want power, you don't look to the people still following the "Robert's Rules of Order" book on CSPAN. They don't have much power, the real power is outside of government, or working for people who fund the election of the puppets in Congress. If you want power, you want Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Scottrade, not Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam works for the banks and the corporations to a large degree. We're an oligarchy, and we've been so for a long time.
Score: 26 (30 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 5:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know that I agree this is how the world works, but I think you just expertly explained what happened in the Walking Dead writer's heads when Andrea took a level in badass in season 2.
Totally applicable to this article.
Score: -8 (14 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 5:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The lack of discussion of Hillary Clinton is noteworthy. Secretary of State is real power.
Score: 10 (32 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 5:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are stupid
Score: -19 (29 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 5:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
To put it in perspective of how men are trapped in the same mode of thinking, consider the fact that the reason 2 dudes will get into a fistfight is not because they actually hate each other, but because they don't want everyone else at the party to think they're a little bitch.
Score: 71 (75 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 5:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So, to assuage your guilt about doing nothing, you tell a bunch of anonymous people that even if you did something it wouldn't work?
Score: 19 (21 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 5:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is the TLP a man or a woman or multiple people? Obviously the person who wrote this article is a guy but in a few of the other articles I thought a woman was writing.
Score: -3 (27 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 5:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You must be new. I believe the unofficial consensus is that TLP is male, in his early 40s, and married with a young, school-age daughter. Watch the downvotes roll in.
Score: 24 (36 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
While agreeing that our culture's expectations of women are a bit unreasonable, I worry somewhat that this line of argument would dismiss most of human culture as narcissism. (Maybe it is; but then naricissism is a pretty fundamental characteristic of our species, and telling people to stop doing it is unlikely to be effective). Why, for example, do we bother wearing clothes when it isn't cold? There's some element of social signalling there, probably.
As well as direct sexual signalling - advertising your attractivness to someone who is present and that you're interested in - there's second order signalling: indicating (to competitors etc.), that you are the kind of person that someone else would find attractive, if they were present.
With a nod to Baudrillard (Simulation and simulacra), this is the kind of the system that can completely run away and take on a self-referential life of its own.
And I'd guess there's more than simply sex being signalled (wealth, social class) etc. etc.
Score: 23 (29 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Seems to be a lot of victim blaming goin' round these parts.
Score: -7 (51 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Fun article. Lots of good points, lots of silly bullshit (e.g. 'power-seeking men aren't running for Senate', really?), but overall an entertaining read.
(To the comments above - I assumed while I was reading this the author was a woman. But it doesn't really make much difference to the arguments either way.)
Score: 1 (17 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for writing this article. It was very useful.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's what I've been wondering.
Also, croatoan is in reference to this line: "Easy, HuffPo, I know it's not causal, I am saying the reverse: that if some field keeps the trappings of power but loses actual power, women enter it in droves and men abandon it like the Roanoke Colony."
Hadn't yet seen anyone answer that earlier challenge.
Score: 23 (23 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
To the extremely angry person who wrote this post:
The Congress with the Most Women has not been seated yet. All the polls and ire are about the last Congress. Can you even name a time since its inception, when people didn't think all these things of Congress? I realize it's a list of feminine traits to your thinking.
You use the example of a woman lawyer raising her daughter to be a lawyer to empower her, and complain that having a whole generation of women lawyers takes the power away from it. How is that so? The power shouldn't be simply that she's the rare woman who is a lawyer, but that she's in a field where her talents, if she has any, can shine.
It's hard to read this entire post, not because it's long, but because it's so vicious toward women. And because you don't get your facts right. You misread a great deal of what happened in Steubenville,for example; although you got the most-googled parts right. Why not do a little research before you use an event to browbeat your audience? It'll make more sense that way.
I'm not sure why you want to call yourself a psychiatrist, even humorously. It creates a false frame of reference for the reader, and expectations you can't deliver on. There's no such thing as neurosis any more, for example. And you're not very good at diagnosis, particularly of narcissism. I'd like it if you were a little more adept at this sort of analysis. I'm going to guess though that there's some projecting going on when you call essentially everyone narcissistic, but my biggest question is, why do you hate women? It's in every word you write. I feel like I'm being slapped around, which makes it hard to imagine what your real points are.
Score: -79 (167 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The phrase I came up with was, if you don't think "Girls" is funny, they're making fun of you.
This is bogus. I can't stand programs like Girls that wield ironic detachment like a shield. I don't deny that there are satirical elements to the show, but satire still needs to be good to warrant praise.
Score: 39 (43 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, sorry, The Secretary of State became a public relations position under Bill Clinton. James Baker was our last real Sec. of State. HC is just a PR hack.
Score: 4 (26 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Interesting read, particularly the segments on where men go to take power (lol I know, but that's how I read it). I'm an affluent man in his thirties, and having hit the goals I set myself as a young adult I've been puzzling out what I do next. I've considered getting involved with the Democratic party at a local level, to feel out if it is a setting I can succeed within. I've also considered focusing on getting as rich as I can and working politically from that position in ten or fifteen years. My gut feeling has been that the latter makes more sense.
Score: -11 (25 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Let me offer a contrary position, unpalatable but worth considering: the only appropriate time to wear make up is to look attractive to men.
Here, Alone is being a bit narcissistic, because it tries to make male heterosexual desire the "reality" on which the whole system is grounded. i.e. it's all about him, or guys like him.
Possible alternatives include lesbian desire (which fair enough, he mentions next, though you might want to extend it to include unconsumated lesbian desire); "grounded in nothing at all" (cf. Baudrillard's sucessive phases of the image: "it has no relation to any reality whatsoever"); and non-sexual signalling of relative status, social role, etc.
Score: -20 (74 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 6:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think the sales of books like Twilight and the 50 Shades of Grey trilogy indicate a lot about 21st century feminism. The Valentis of this world are more concerned about the word nigger than the normalisation of psychosexual manipulation. In short they think that being fisted by a sadistic psychopath is normal and revolutionary, and the approximation of dialogue or words is immoral. If women were called out on their own rape fantasies and fantasies of sexual manipulation they'd froth at the mouth. To be frank, I am an angry woman. When I see these pseuds calling themselves feminists I want to slap them, but they'd still harp on about their misguided amalgamation of feminism.
Score: 51 (77 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 7:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree that alone is coming from a heterosexual premise.
His main point in this section is that the "makeup is for me" defense is narcissistic delusion, and that the real goal of makeup is sexual attraction (and that's ok). The sexual orientation of the quote is ancillary in my eyes.
I see the quote as either rhetorically scoring points by shocking you with an extreme counter to a previous point, at best. Or just lazy writing, at worst.
Score: 20 (28 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 8:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Seems pretty obvious to me from close reading that Alone is actually a woman. And I could be wrong, but I suspect she's the 16 y.o. almost-rape victim from 1986 mentioned in the post.
Score: -41 (61 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 8:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Next big sector of power is agriculture.
There are no women in agriculture because it's a yucky frontier type business.
Score: 3 (29 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 8:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'd love to see the author's reply to this, but I think giving more than one perspective on this may be useful (even if only so others may correct my errors).
"The Congress with the Most Women has not been seated yet. All the polls and ire are about the last Congress."
Exactly. And the author is suggesting a causal relationship: Congress is seen as ineffective, so more women are allowed into it and/or men have started using other means to gain power.
"You use the example of a woman lawyer raising her daughter to be a lawyer to empower her, and complain that having a whole generation of women lawyers takes the power away from it. How is that so?"
When the parent became a lawyer it was an automatic path to success - just being admitted to the bar meant financial independence, an array of career choices, and "doctor-level" respect. When the daughter graduates, she's saddled with student debt, is somewhat likely to end up doing paralegal work or making copies for the only firm that will hire her, and will be treated with "general studies-level" respect.
"why do you hate women? It's in every word you write."
The author doesn't hate women. The article isn't even really about women. The only thing it does is use women (and slaves) as examples of the difference between apparent power and actual power:
"I'm free!" But only because they let me go.
"I'm a Senator!" But I obey the lobbyists and party bosses.
vs
"I can end free myself over their objections."
"I can change the law how I want."
Score: 62 (68 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 9:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
this is what solidarity means to women in India
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 9:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
People who are calling Alone a misogynist should remember this part of the article:
" "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?" "
The flipside to the question "Why don't women empower themselves?" is the question "Why do men continute to oppress women?"
The answer is that The System of male power sustains itself. It never enters men's heads to relinquish their power, in the same way that it never enters women's heads to grasp REAL power.
Score: 40 (62 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 9:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Speaking of powerful: this article was more than worth the wait. Alone, how do you penetrate so incisively into the water in which we fish swim? And not just with one topic, but several, before weaving them into a larger tapestry of insight? I am in awe.
I'll be mulling this one over for weeks to come...
Score: 15 (25 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't wear make up and I never have. I can't tell you why, and whys don't matter, we know that. The thing is, I was raised Mormon and lived a lot of my life in Utah and no question I was pressured to fit in. I still didn't. I made some brief volleys that direction, and just didn't. Never cared enough to make a habit of it. Never really wanted to attract men. Maybe we can say, or pretend it's so calculated and reasoned as this, it's because men lead to marriage and marriage leads to children and to that ingrained patriarchal order that is never so overtly oppressive as people want to think Mormonism is, but still ever-present enough that I don't know what to think about the Mormon feminist movement. The church is built on these mores. It's entirely built on the necessity of having families with quite a few children if you can handle it and on women having certain roles and men having certain roles. Maybe we get more authority and a wider variety of clothing/appearances to try on, but is it even possible to change the system? I mean, really change it. I mean, women being right up there at the head, and family roles being more independent of gender -- I mean, is that even the church anymore? Would most women want that? Changing even a smaller culture like a church with, whatever we have now, 12 million members, is Sisyphean, and we're talking core parts of culture. Core. Sure, we'll get a little news attention now and then. Because of pants. Or because, shockingly, a woman who is no longer young and did not get a man, as many Mormon women do not, is uninterested in staying celibate all her life. This is not to say that the Mormon church is deaf to all this. They will continually tell women that it isn't their fault that they don't get married, just as they will now (at least sometimes) tell homosexuals that being gay is not their fault. You just wait. You find other things to do and you wait and you wait and the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Some eternal someone will make it better at the last.
It isn't that it's difficult to be Mormon in name while your heart is elsewhere. It's nice to have a community that meets together weekly. It's nice to have all that focus on being nice and serving others. You can be a little benignly different and, honestly, people won't write you up for it. No, fellows, the worst that will happen to you for not wearing make-up is this: people (primarily women) will assume that you have a tragic wound to your self-esteem. They will assume you don't like yourself. I mean, obviously, you can't possibly. We know what the map for liking yourself looks like.
I don't honestly think the Mormon culture is all that different from American culture as a whole.
Call it a microcosm. Mormonism is a distinctly American religion, after all. What are you going to do, change the culture? How are you going to do that? Yes, absolutely, you should go save that girl that's being raped. Absolutely. I love concrete things like that. It's the equivalent of going out and slaying the dragon everyone's terrified, how awesome, how heroic. But, of course, the problem is always the same. Being different in even incredibly minor ways is cause for judgment, and judgment is scary, and judgment leaves you alone, and how many ways we continue to justify not acting. I don't see any girl being raped right this minute, you know, where I can do something about it, so I'll wait. I'll wait for the opportunity. It'll come. It's at hand.
I'm pretty smart in a conventional way. I work hard. I'm the same age as those hipsters everyone's talking about, and my degrees are just as useless, but I get by in unglamorous, but progressively more responsible jobs. I get along with people. If life was somehow magically judged on a pass/fail, I'd probably do fine.
I hate just passing. I hate that I want to be a man so I don't have to be aware of this lens, this woman lens that I don't want, and never have wanted. And that isn't an expression of being transgender, that's an expression of my own kind of misogynistic cowardice. My "who on earth would want to be a woman?" I had an extremely talented friend who said there was no point in being a female composer, because you're always a woman first. Everything you do will be judged through that lens, she says. I thought, no, you can't conclude that. We can't conclude that, or we're lost. We're all lost.
And here I am, trying to run again. I know that a big reason women are paid less is because they'll accept less, I know it, and I still won't negotiate my salary, because I'm just happy I have a job. I know so much misogyny is from women, so much of systemic standards for what a woman is (instead of just herself) comes from women, and my strategy for being hemmed is to withdraw, to run, to write castigating satirical novels -- well, no, I'm still here self-censoring. Even in a private corner on a private computer, writing about fictitious people. Look, I'm not wearing make-up, I'm doing my part, okay? Except, when it comes down to it, those well-meaning, judging women are right when they figure I got some self-esteem wound. I do hate myself a little. And the path is open to me. Or is it? Wouldn't it be nice if it were that easy. Just slap on some mascara and everything will be better. The kingdom of God is at hand, just wait. Just wait and the reason for the system will become clear.
Yeah, I know why we don't rise up. It's so hard to be brave. What are you going to do, change the culture? How arrogant of you. How supremely selfish. What do I know, anyway? What if I'm wrong? What if I'm an aberration? What if the system is right? What if we'd all be better off if I kept my mouth shut and passed.
But I have to learn to be brave. I have dozens of excuses for why I'm not. But they don't do me any good.
I'm sorry this is so long.
Score: 91 (109 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"The flipside to the question "Why don't women empower themselves?" is the question "Why do men continute to oppress women?""
Except that those questions should be reversed. Our society is constantly pointing to "the old boy's club", "male chauvinist pigs", sexism, and now "rape culture" to explain the gender power discrepancy in our society. What useful advice do we give women? Not much. What do we expect from them? That's what I thought.
Look at rape as an example. Ads all over the place about how "men can stop rape" and the President admonishes men to help if they see a woman in trouble. But even mentioning ways a woman can protect herself will get someone labeled a "victim-blaming misogynist", and forget pointing out how stupid it is to get blackout drunk with people you don't know or wander the bad side of town at 3 AM.
Now look at the subtext - men choose to rape or not, to intervene or not, in both cases they decide and act - and women are completely passive, with no choices that carry moral weight or responsibility.
Even in strongly 'feminist' messages women simply don't have agency, and then we wonder why they don't reach for power but only ask to have it given to them.
"It never enters men's heads to relinquish their power, in the same way that it never enters women's heads to grasp REAL power."
The problem with that statement is that actual power can't be relinquished or given or shared, only fought for. If 'power' is merely granted then it's not the real thing.
Score: 53 (105 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 10:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That is an amazing article.
I'm donating some money, and encourage anyone else who has found value here to pay for it to happen again and more.
Alone, if you wrote a book about raising strong daughters, I would buy it for thousands (of dollars & people).
Ben
Score: 20 (30 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm so pleased to find yet another article about how it's women's fault that women get raped. That's original thinking, right there.
Score: -86 (142 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This comes at such a strange moment in my life. Lately, I've been feeling so happy as myself, a woman. But then, maybe it is because I haven't been a person of agency lately. I've been dutifully putting on makeup and not just to attract men and to be sexually attractive so to speak.
What I am saying is...there is a lot of comfort in the status quo. The status quo can as they feel. It is its own blind freedom. But any woman who really wants to buck the system has to spend some time like the old-time suffragette. No one wants to do that.
That might include me.
Score: 25 (33 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
...should read, "The status quo can do as they feel."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I disagree.
I don't think social power can come from an ability to escape the real world, on a solo adventure inside the logic of your mind.
I am a software dev - The reason why it's full of men is revealing for a different reason. If the men-of-power on wall street are the epitome of man culture then software devs are the anti-man culture.
They're the scared boys who could never accept turning into rape-men and their response is to flee. Thankfully there was a semantic, completely-abstract, completely defined system to flee to.
No judgement, no power. In-fact, the central tenant of OOP is a lesson in restricting yourself as much as possible (encapsulation).
There's nowhere in programming where you didn't have enough courage to help a girl from getting raped. No girls either; more importantly - no rape-men.
Score: 19 (33 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Croatoan is an ailment specifically described as "blood-borne virus" that is demonic in origin, and causes a murderous rage in the people it infects.
Azazel field tests the virus in River Grove, Oregon in 2006. It proves effective in causing the townspeople to kill each other, and importantly proves that Sam Winchester is immune to its effects.
Following his release, Lucifer intends to use this virus to produce chaos and massacre on Earth during the Apocalypse. The virus is to be distributed by Niveus Pharmaceuticals in a vaccine that is being used against a swineflu endemic caused by Pestilence. The plan is averted when Sam and Bobby destroy the warehouse where the vaccine is stored.
Score: 3 (15 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
thank you.
i need a drink right now.
i mean, fuck you.
Score: 10 (18 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've been reading for a while and have to wonder. My current feeling is it's a woman, but the mentions are so obvious that they may just be purposeful mis-direction. (That ad. not being targeted at TLP, also mentioning of wanting to grow up to be a playboy girl in a prev. post)
The main ambiguity is with TLP's writing style. It's incredibly aggressive and full of power - which while reading makes me think they're male.
I'd say nearly for sure though that it's one person, just cause the style is so specific.
Score: 3 (13 votes cast)
January 15, 2013 11:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
whoa. seriously. dude. heavy.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 2:18 AM | Posted by : | Reply
make up is not what's wrong with make up... (except parabens...etc.)
(and there were times when men were actually wearing eyeliner... and there were times when men were painted like Easter eggs...)
the other day my female friend said when talking about metrosexual guys: "I don't get it... when a man is naturally pretty he just doesn't need to wear a make up."
I dunno... but in my piece of Matrix that what's women used to be told. Actually that was the goal. If you want to attract a man, you should get rid of make up. Guys don't like it. There's nothing worse than "make up-ed" girl in bed. Yet every girl in her teens was wearing a make up. (maybe bc they weren't trying to get laid...) I stopped to wear make up when I grew out of teenager category, but back then I used to wear bright green shadows with red shirts bc I loved that combination of colors... and other girls used to "teach" me how is that not "stylish" or something and that I should wear blue shadows since I have blue eyes (they read it somewhere...apparently women's magazines are for women from women)... I was definitely not trying to attract men; the moment I got seriously interested in men I got rid of all make up (my piece of Matrix kicked in :)).
well, no. that's not the whole story.
system is running nonetheless. and while guys are judging: "geeez, did you see that clown? tons of make up all over her face..I wonder she haven't crashed under such a weight yet" (seems like in my corner of Matrix make up is a sign of insecurity); girls are rolling their eyes: "oh god, look at that dork with highlights and gel in his hair stiffened like concrete..."
I dunno... those games. they probably will be here forever.
well, I still make jokes about those girls who wear miniskirts in freezing cold to keep that feeling of power due to "sexiness". but if I happened to be witness of one of them being raped I would kick that guy in head and then rip off his genitalia forever and not pass by thinking "you see?".
if you are wearing make up doesn't mean you are insecure, or that the only way how to feel powerful for you is to be pretty. the system may want you to think that though. actually, that's exactly what it is doing - telling women that their power is in their beauty.
changing the system? don't play it's game. the system will spit you out as not digestible. or subvert it from the inside.
we can beg men to stop behave as they behave, or to criticize them ad infinitum, but if we continue behave like they are gods who are to decide or approve what a woman is worth, they can laugh at us "they are just faking, they like it as it is".
what's funny is that you don't have to be angelina to have sex in this world, ask any guy. "it's not about sex, it's about power." and the only way for you to have any resemblance of power is to be pretty. yeah, some men will buy you gifts and do you favors and will dance on your command, and some girls will envy you. and that's exactly the limit of your power, that's how far you can reach.
Score: 19 (37 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 2:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone,
after number VI you went back to IV, where it should be VII.
There's also no I.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 2:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He's not angry, you're just projecting.
Score: 2 (12 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 3:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh wow, thank you. On all of this. From the makeup to the power to the rape.
You know what drove me crazy in college? That I was so especially praised for taking care of drunk friends. I'd carry my roomie and another girlfriend away from pika dudes at 4AM and the next day "YOU'RE SO WONDERFUL" by anyone that knew. From other girls at that party that did nothing. Eventually that became my reputation. I could be drunk off my ass and some random girl would sit her drunk friend on my lap "Watch her for me, you're such a good person" Paranas the guys sure, but what sort of a witch abandons a friend?
But what bugged me is the praise. Similar to how they qualify the slaveowner as evil it seemed they needed to make the obvious action of not letting some poor passed out girl get molested be extraordinary instead of basic. These same women that do slutwalks and hate victim blaming. Yes it is directly the rapist causing rape but you all saw the assassin putting poison in the drink and sharpening his knife and said nothing. Cowards.
Score: 94 (102 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 4:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
thank you for the only sane comment on here. this article is so full of bullshit, bad research, dismission of actual women's work and other misogynism that it's just a waste of time to comment further.
Score: -56 (102 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 4:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"So why do you still keep this blog open?"
"So why did you decide to rise up? I liked you better as a slave."
Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 5:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Girls, wrong dimension when answering. You are proving it. No power for u booohoooo.
Score: -13 (31 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 5:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Lovely post.
Certainly by keeping the focus on beauty we can ignore the fact that, as Menippus said to Philonides, in the end our bones end up in a pile, "uncertain, unlabelled, indistinguishable."
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 7:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You don't need to buy a book about raising strong daughters, just raise them as if they were boys.
Score: 6 (30 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 10:28 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I believe there are two ways by which people attempt to achieve beauty.
The first is simply by imitation. You just start by looking at what everyone else is doing, and try to do the same. You end up following a set of common rules that are more or less socially vetted and understood to cause the supposed emergence of what you'd call beauty. However, given that the source of these rules is external, the only way to validate yourself is by receiving external approval. This is cargo cult behaviour. You do something because others do it, without really understanding why it works. The results of the application of this method say nothing about yourself. Most of the time, they project the personality equivalent of a cheap Chinese knock-off. It brings with it no intrinsic value, and therefore doesn't nurture the self-confidence that makes people truly attractive.
The second is to become genuinely interested in the subject of beauty, not for its social ramifications, but because understanding beauty will genuinely improve you as a person. You do this by cultivating an eye to color, shape and composition, by studying art and fashion, by really dwelling on the subject of what beauty *is* and how it works. The result of this work is a change in your perception that allows you to access, based on your own understanding of the world, whether something looks good or not. This allows you to have Opinions, derived from yourself and your unique personality. Because these opinions come from your own understanding, their validation does not depend on others' approval. Employing them shows that you have the mental capacity and experience to make artistic decisions and are therefore a useful person to society. This is truly attractive and the source of real beauty.
The adage "you must look good to yourself" is usually thrown around in an equally cargo-cultish manner. Its true meaning is that you need to stop trying to do it because everyone else does it, and start doing it because you want to become a more interesting and valuable person. And as everything else of value, you have to put in some actual work to get there. Only when you can look in the mirror and decide for yourself that you look good, with full knowledge that you can justify it to yourself without asking anyone else, will you be able to project the necessary feeling of self confidence that makes you look attractive in others' eyes.
It comes down again to real value vs appearance of value. Which is like real power and appearance of power. Power is achieved internally, simply by acting in a way as to alter the state of things around you according to your opinions. This requires opinions, and to have opinions you need to know how to have them. The rest is just a matter of engineering.
Score: 35 (41 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 10:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I find that many of the manosphere blogs tend to be a bit too centred on America (for obvious reasons).
Therefore I would like to bring up one little detail, Margaret Thatcher got in a relatively important position while government still had a certain degree of power*. How would you explain that in light of the rest of your argument?
Note: I don't disagree with you, I find what you write very interesting. I would like your view on this issue however.
*Ironically, while she was in power she was instrumental in giving this power away, couldn't cope?
Score: 21 (23 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 10:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First off, the point is that women are allowed to be in the lawyer's role because the lawyer has very little actual power just as women or blacks or average joes are allowed in formerly "elite" positions in our society precisely because those positions seem like powerful positions without having actual power. It's about gatekeeping. The elite abandoned the positions because they knew that such positions have very little power over our everyday lives. congress can't change our day to day lives, you'd have more power as the head of some multi-national or other megacorp. The corp. has all the power, because government cannot run without the taxes they bring in, and further if they get pissed, they leave. So in order to run the government to a real degree, you have to give in to those forces, the real power. Look no farther than the Facebook guy who renounced his citizenship rather than face a huge tax burden -- He basicly flipped the government the bird on his way out the door with millions in American dollars made on American soil, and the American government couldn't do anything but lower the tax rate so that other people would not do the same thing. Who had the power? Not the government.
Same thing with lawyers -- they're basicly clerks, they can't change the system much. It's mostly finding loopholes for whatever side you're paid to be on. No major social changes in the last 40 years have come as a direct result of a lawsuit. So let the women be lawyers, it's all about finding a lingual trick that makes you right.
Real power can dictate terms, it can throw it's weight around, it can demand that you pay attention to it. Fake power collects titles and pretends that they mean something.
As to why Feminists are not getting the results they want. A couple of things. First off, they're interested in symbols, not reality. Being a congresswoman or a lawyer represents that you should have power, in other words it looks to people who don't know better that they have power. Lots of people think that Pelosi has power. OK what signature piece of legislation has she passed in the last 10 years? What has she done that changes the way that you live your life? Nothing. It's symbolic power, not real power. Also, women and for that matter gays in those movements tend to be upper middle class. That matters because it's not a matter of survival for most of them. Which changes how you approach the situation. If (as it was for blacks in the 1960's) getting power meant that you could get decent jobs and not live in the slums, or that political power means that it's no longer acceptable to lynch you, you will get the actual power. It's not a game. If you're upper middle class, getting rights is not life or death. And as such you don't insist on power, because you don't need the power. If the black rights movement had failed blacks would still be lynched, still be subjects of medical experiments (tuskagee, for example) and still be living a third world existence in first world America. If Women's rights fail, she still has an upper middle class lifestyle, complete with first world education, comfortable income, and all kinds of other perks. Gays is the same thing -- so you can't get married, you still get the upper middle class income, upper middle class education, and so on. So why worry that you don't get to be with the power-brokers? The power brokers aren't hurting you, you're in their families. So you take the symbolic power, because you aren't afraid of the real powers.
So it's kind of both. But I really don't think the distribution of power has changed much since the time of the Romans. It's always elite families at the top, toadies in the middle, peasents and slaves at the bottom. We just come up with power structures that make it look like it's all merit. It isn't. Patronage is as much a key to power in America as it ever was in Rome.
Score: 32 (44 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 11:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Margaret Thatcher had real power, but, I want to point out, she was disliked by a great many women. Those who voted for Thatcher (voted Tory - not directly for her, yes, I know how a parliamentary system works) didn't vote Tory because she was a woman. They chose her despite the fact that she was a woman. Powerful women, not-pseudo powerful women like Hillary Clinton, are frequently despised by other women. Elizabeth I or Cleopatra who both had family members put to death to seize power are fine examples. For those familiar with the world of finance, another example of the powerful but despised woman is Meredith Whitney.
These kinds of women don’t gain power by drawing on the sisterhood, by appealing to ideas of equality in gender or “fairness”. They just take it, like men. Fuck you, I want it.
Score: 39 (47 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 11:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I just wanted to say I agree with a great deal of what you've written.
Makeup/No makeup - it's really all about what the culture at any given time determines what is attractive/desirable.
The sex stuff and our (both women and men) use of it to gain influence and power is universal and constant, but it is only one aspect of our identity - a powerful part, but just part. People who don't know this make frequent fools of themselves and overplay their hands.
Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 12:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What do we make of the new trend in rhetoric, highlighted in this post but also heard from Jon Stewart et al, where the language of relationships comes through in public forums - i.e. "We need to talk about American masculinity." "We as a nation need to have a conversation about gun laws." Ideas?
Score: 20 (20 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 3:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Were I to wager a guess, I'd say it's language optimized for inaction. By couching everything as a discussion, there's no implication that action will ever be taken, so you can complete the discussion and both sides can declare victory as long as nothing is done.
Score: 31 (31 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 3:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey Anon,
And the Anon I'm replying to said:
To the extremely angry person who wrote this post:
You use the example of a woman lawyer raising her daughter to be a lawyer to empower her, and complain that having a whole generation of women lawyers takes the power away from it. How is that so? The power shouldn't be simply that she's the rare woman who is a lawyer, but that she's in a field where her talents, if she has any, can shine.
Well, that may be what your read into what Alone said, or what you think the subtext is, but what Alone actually wrote was:
In this case, you are seeing a shift of power be repackaged as a gender battle. And it's quite apparent that power is a generation or so ahead of you, so in 1990 a 40 year old who grew up around successful lawyers then says to his 5 year old, "daughter, you should become a lawyer!" and she probably at one point collaborates to decry the lack of female role models, and then by the time she graduates law school she discovers she's a dime a dozen, power has been withdrawn, one step ahead....
Minor point first: it's not a woman lawyer raising her daughter to be a lawyer to empower her; it's a MAN who grew up around successful lawyers telling HIS daughter to be a lawyer. And note the timeframe given -- a 40 year old in 1990 -- so born in 1950 and "grew up" let's say 1960 - 1970 REMEMBERING what WERE powerful positions during his formative years.
Major point: Alone's point is that the power (law in this example) has shifted or evaporated over a generation and now that it's gone, women enter the field. Alone says it better:
"....A shift of power be repackaged as a gender battle. And it's quite apparent that power is a generation or so ahead of you..... by the time she graduates....power has been withdrawn"
You have the Alone's causality reversed: it's not because there are women in the activity that it's not powerful, it's that if it's powerful, there are few women in the field. And it's not angry or hateful or anti-woman; it's an observation of the way the world is.
Score: 24 (30 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 3:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stacy,
Your comment: No, sorry, The Secretary of State became a public relations position under Bill Clinton. James Baker was our last real Sec. of State. HC is just a PR hack
Bingo.
And that change coincided with the demise of the Soviet Union -- the only potential challenger to oligarchic domination.
And not a bad position to use to neuter a political rival (e.g. HRC, Colin Powell).
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 4:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is the kind of thing he does a lot, especially with feminism. (Or possibly I just notice it because I know more about feminism than he does.) He bends the facts to fit his pet theory. The last one was about The Hunger Games, in which he advanced a theory "it's the most sexist story of the year" and supported it with some good evidence, but then also wrote stuff that showed he hadn't read the story. When people pointed it out, he wrote a post about how he definitely, definitely had read the book AND seen the movie - and then mentioned a bunch of scenes to support his theory again. The problem was, he got the facts of those scenes completely wrong. These were key scenes that anyone who had read the book or seen the movie wouldn't have missed, and they were used to support his argument. So either he didn't actually read the book or see the movie, or saw both but re-edited the entire thing in his head to support his argument.
In this case, he's gone on and on about how we learn our rules of behavior from the system, and the system is what determines what women do, and women haven't found a way to change the power dynamics of that system. But when girls in a small town don't stick up for each other, it's because they learned the rules from women - even though he has nothing to back that up and he has spent the entire post saying that men control the system and teach people the rules. He also ignores the fact that two women, the victim and the female blogger, starting getting people's attention and turned this into a national cause. He's also acting as though women protecting other women doesn't happen, even though a minute spent searching the internet, or talking to any women, will show you that it does, both in organized ways and spontaneously in individuals.
I don't think he hates women. And I think parts of his posts have good points. But I do think he's not a fan of feminism(fine) and refuses to let the facts get in the way of a good story(not so fine).
Score: 13 (75 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 4:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
RISE UP! YOU GOT TO RISE!!!!!!!!! - Bad Brains
Smoke a fat one and listen to the song, Doc. Foh Real Yo!
Score: -2 (16 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Lilin said: "But when girls in a small town don't stick up for each other, it's because they learned the rules from women - even though he has nothing to back that up and he has spent the entire post saying that men control the system and teach people the rules. He also ignores the fact that two women, the victim and the female blogger, starting getting people's attention and turned this into a national cause."
One of the main points of the Django Unchained section is that both sides are plugged in to the system. 'Why don't they rise up' / 'Why don't they just stop'. just add 'Why didn't other women intervene'. As for making this a national cause, one of the large points of the article is that many of the things today's feminists do are actually regressive as they plug people even more into the system rather than fight against it. He's not blaming women for keeping women down, but blaming feminists for creating Marx's false-consciousness.
It's the same argument he made of Kony 2012 and Occupy Wall Street. These movements make just enough noise to become no threat. Just enough for catharsis, but never enough for change. Protests that perpetuate the status quo.
His arguments are a bit heavy on the social Conflict Theory for my taste, but they are self-consistent.
Score: 22 (28 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 5:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have to ask at this point, what "system" are you even talking about? And how does it determine one mode of behavior in a case - passivity in the face of a woman being attacked - but is utterly unaffected by the opposite mode of behavior - women standing up for a woman being attacked. If you've used a case as an example of how the system works, but are then told the details are exactly the opposite of what you've been told, you can't say that's still an example of the system working.
I think your problem is you're framing things in a different way each time.
"The system taught women that they don't stand up for this girl being raped."
"But there are a bunch of women standing up for this girl who was raped, and it changed a lot of things about her circumstances and the way her court case was handled."
"But that won't change the system, because it's just a lot of noise that only affected one girl!"
You end up sounding like that Bill Hicks routine where he criticized reporters who talked about how rain doesn't help a drought. You're saying the general determines the particular, but then when being told that the details of the particular are exactly the opposite of what you've been told, you reframe it as the particular not determining the general, and act like that was your argument the whole time.
Score: 14 (28 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 5:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The idea that Alone was trying to convey, is that Katniss never Han Solo-ed anyone; she didn't shoot first.
And she didn't kill to win.
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 6:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Keep it up!
I meant the writing, damn, you're so dirty.
I think the point is, instead of a whole bunch of people writing on the internet "Assange! Yeah he's a jerk! That's rape!"
There is less in the way of ACTION STEPS. What are all these thousands of feminists collaborating on to physically do to change how shitty they RIGHTLY think things are? The point is not that the talk is bad but that unless it's coupled with DO-- here is what we can DO together to support women in need of help coping with women's issues----, here is what we can DO to change the laws or the cultural attitude....
I mean his point is clearly that, do you really think thousands of conversations at feministing are going to do anything to cause men to like feminism more?
And aren't MEN (who rape women) the people who most need to start understanding they shouldn't rape? Aren't abusers the most in need of understanding what abuse is and that they shouldn't do it? Aren't men the ones that need to get the message of what rape actually does to women in the long term... WHY abuse victims turn to lives of internet venting about rapes and cat pictures because half of them are on disability and too fucked up to work or do anything else? (hey it's a self description don't think I'm just being mean...)
The people who need to know, the people who minimize the effects of abuse, not just abusers but ordinary folk who minimize itand uphold abusers sides of things and blame abuse victims for their struggles---- they are not at feministing.
The education needs to make it beyond the self release of in-group speak that affects no change to the people who don't vluntarily seek out the information (in which case they can't actually be the sort of people who need it most?)
The truth is, some of the most nasty abusers have faced cruel rearing themselves from their parents. You know, being abused or being shoved into reality without mercy for how hard it is or being trained to give and recieve love and nurturing.
Poverty is abusive.
And the idea that a woman who smacked a little but fed and clothed and goes shopping with the money from the dude who is breaking his back and his soul, literally to make it happen in the physically demanding fields of work men are expected to do if needed-- it's hard to reason with these fuckers. Reality is just as cruel to the struggling woman with no resources to take a break when needed or find another job if it's destroying her... but women are much more likely to be able to make a sweet smile and get out of the terrible labor force that is lower class (and some middle and upper class paying) working life.
Reality is more cruel than many abusers-- it will kill, destroy and cause excruciating pain with no mercy at all.
It's more TWISTED--- it's more DEMENTED when humans do the things reality does to humans without feeling. And in truth, one might argue, more emotionally scarring. But in truth when populations have high quantities of abusive, angry, violent, raging, depressive, chemically dependant men-- I have to ask-- who is raising these men, what the fuck is happening in their lives, and why are they so miserable and disturbed? Is it possible that rearing and community is an essential component to human health and that our culture's beliefs about what humans need in terms of familial and social support is in fact not scientifically accurate?
And I'm not actually blaming mothers, maybe the mothers want to be doing better but can't. What's in the way? Poverty? Lack of emotional support? Lack of community? Being overworked and absent just to pay the bills? Abandoning fathers?
Why aren't the men providing the financial resources for women to be emotionally and physically supported to focus on rearing? OR if we are to be enlightened... why aren't women earning the money so that men can stay at home and focus on the rearing if the man is the better caregiver?
If everyone's supposed to be working all day long during the week then... who is doing the rearing?
People say it's hard for families. I agree, it is hard for families. It's frustrating because the same married liberal couples who have no problem saying some irresponsable lady who got knoecked up needs to have an abortion because DUH, her situation isn't good enough for children.
Then they turn around and say "But you can't hold ME accountable for being a financial and emotional provider of all my children's needs. That's too hard!!! You don't know how hard it is!"
Well, were was that abortion when you should have gotten one then, oh middle class who finds it all so impossibly hard? No problem requiring poor people be banned from parenthood but if you struggle...it's because... parenting is just understandably hard. And no one should judge you. Or feel bad for your kids. And maybe the lower classes should work for even less money to make your precious middle class "difficult" life easier.
Women's issues ARE different than men's issues. Someone needs to be nurturing the children. Someone has a uterus to grow them. Someone has breasts to feed them. Feminists have been fighting so hard to be able to abort and to be able to leave children and stay in the workforce instead of mothering-- what we're left with is a culture that devalues human development in the womb and the bonds that happen during pregnancy and birth and early childhood which are usually (BUT NOT ALWAYS!) much stronger between a mother than a father. And much stronger between a child and mother than a stressed out childcare worker with 8 other screaming babies in the room and one assistant.
It's funny because women activists have fought HARD to give women an advantage in cusotdy arrangements. I think this is RIGHT. It's the right thing to do because mothers tend to be more bonded to their children due to the birth and early rearing experience. This advantage in court SUCKS for men who are nurturers being divorced by wives who are assholes and don't have a maternal bone in their body, which does happen plenty.
But the averages trend toward women being nurturers and there are legitimate reasons that treating women as unique from, rather than the exact same as men, makes sense. After all, we basically fought for all women to see rearing children as boring servant work like men do, while they go out in the world to do ACTUAL valuable work.
Who cleans up the mess of what that does to the children? Making conditions better for women includes making conditions better for men. Human rights should be the united goal, with specific issues that affect women being part of that. Women ARE different from men, there will not be a time when (unless we genetically modify humans) women's right's issues won't need to be a specific part of human rights issues.
But poverty- lack of physical, emotional, and psychological resources--- is at the root of all human rights issues.
And the solution to that is production of goods that make human life comfortable and healthy-- and human beings taking the time to be there, in person for those in need of emotional support.
We can all volunteer to take care of the broken people (or to fight to keep them out of society)-- or maybe we could support and train their mothers to do it to begin with since there are no pills or therapy techniques that fix mammals neglected and abused in their early development.
We could also provide better male oriented services since men with PTSD and trauma and mental illness issues are more likely to use drug dependance or cope with personality disordered behavior rather than face how shitty their family situation was or things they went through (or accept help, period). Encouraging men "to therapy" might not work as well and there might be legitimate reasons for that.
Score: 7 (51 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 6:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think this article tackles issues relating almost exclusively to American culture. I'm inclined to think that its central thesis -- that women are pleased to be decorative, rather than powerful -- is largely false. Just because they are pushed into a decorative role does not mean they chose it and you can't take the fact that they engage in personal grooming as evidence that women are prepared to settle for less than men would be.
On the matter of American feminism, there can often be some problems. Perhaps the issue is that some women really are going for power, in a way that is separated from idealism, logic, or normal human manners. It's very typical to encounter an American troll ranting at you, proclaiming, "all you think about it yourself!" when they are trying to get people to see things their way. Narcissism is not party to communication, but this ailment afflicts many who would be activists. They think if they shout and scream at you enough, society will start to change. The Men's Rights activists do the same thing. They yell and abuse. It's the American way.
Score: 2 (26 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 6:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What is this system we're talking about? Not a clue. It's a problem i've had with conflict theory; The hand-wavy 'them' who are keeping the proletariat down. In alone's writing I take it to mean U.S. culture.
I don't see it as a false comparison because women really didn't stand up for the raped girl(s); the particulars did not change. You are correct that they stood up in the trial, but not at the party. Alone was comparing a 1986 rape case to a presumably 2011 rape case where in both instances the women present at the rape did nothing to stop it.
Score: 15 (15 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
" In alone's writing I take it to mean U.S. culture. I don't see it as a false comparison because women really didn't stand up for the raped girl(s); the particulars did not change. You are correct that they stood up in the trial, but not at the party. Alone was comparing a 1986 rape case to a presumably 2011 rape case where in both instances the women present at the rape did nothing to stop it."
The problem is, that goes back to not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. He's decided that these two cases stand for America. Fine. But America is only defined by the people at the party, not the people who stood up and changed things afterwards. How did that get to be a fact? Why do the girls at the party count, but the women who changed the way the legal system was handling afterwards not count? Because if they did, he'd have to change his story, so he blocks out the facts.
Also, why do these two stories count most, when you can find, between 1986 and 2011, plenty of stories about women stopping rape? (And more than that if you consider the fact that a woman telling guys to stop something, and them stopping it, is less likely to end up in the paper than a gang rape.) Because if he took that into account, he wouldn't get to tell his story the way he wants to tell it.
And then within is argument, women never get to call the shots in the system, and the system determines young women's behavior, but women, more than anything else, determine young women's behavior. Because if they didn't how would he say what he wants to say?
Score: 4 (32 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 7:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Because if the women at the party did something, there would be no case. And that's Alone's point.
If women got really serious about feminism, and made a point of educating and converting women, "the patriarchy" would lose much of it's power.
Instead feminism focuses on demanding that the system change so that women feel empowered.
Score: 15 (33 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 7:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Also, why do these two stories count most, when you can find, between 1986 and 2011, plenty of stories about women stopping rape?"
Because the point isn't that it doesn't happen but that it's never spoken as what needs to be done. In his example of "A dentist firing his assitant because she's ugly will get him fired by an angry mob" is precisely about this. People know that the rape needs to stop, but too many are unwilling to stop it as it happens.
Maybe he does find fault in modern feminism, I know at the very least I do, but you seem blinded by this in light of the very fact that he's trying to actually empower women with not just this article but any time one relates to women.
Score: 2 (12 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 8:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Why do the girls at the party count, but the women who changed the way the legal system was handling afterwards not count? Because if they did, he'd have to change his story, so he blocks out the facts." ... "Also, why do these two stories count most, when you can find, between 1986 and 2011, plenty of stories about women stopping rape?"
Though I find picking a supporting example less damning than you do, fair enough. You are correct that he's marginalizing the real accomplishments of feminism in the intervening years in order to make his point.
Score: 2 (16 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 8:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What real accomplishments? The entire point is that recent history and achievements have been superficial.
Let's keep this simple. When Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus to make a stand for change, did she ask for permission or for those in charge to consider letting it happen? NO. She took it.
While not about female empowerment you should still be able to get the point.
Instead of encouraging women to take power, modern feminism focuses on demanding that the system change so that women feel empowered.
Score: 27 (41 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 8:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There are two different areas we're talking about here; I'll call them cultural and structural.
Structural changes are changes to our laws and government. The apparatus of the nation. And there have been very real structural accomplishments ranging from birth control and sex-ed in schools (very much topics of gender equality), to the kind of rape laws Lilin referred to. And until the early 2000s, the wage gap was measurably closing. Emphasis on 'was'.
The other side of it is cultural, dealing with the outlooks of people, how people are socialized into a gender, and norms/roles. This is where I feel alone was claiming feminism has failed.
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 8:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The powers that be changed the system just enough, so that most women don't care to be feminists.
Calling that a real achievement is like being date-raped by the devil. You're in bed with him, you just don't know it yet.
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 9:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Outsize:"What do we make of the new trend in rhetoric... "We need to talk about American masculinity." "We as a nation need to have a conversation about gun laws." Ideas?"
• It's been going on for a while
• It's the 'royal we' dictating the time, place, and subject matter for a 'conversation' that has a predetermined outcome
• In other words, it IS the Matrix (again...)
• It's the sort of verbal construction one might use with a child, but not with an adult
• I have learned not to trust people who use 'conversation' in this way- they are not seeking understanding, they are making a play for CONTROL
Score: 23 (25 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 9:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A request.
I could use help trying to explain to my friend how this isn't victim blaming. They're very defensive when it comes to sexism and I'm apparently terrible at giving a good description or explanation. Anyone?
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 9:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone isn't asking why more victims don't kick rapists in the mouth, he's asking why women don't band together to change the status quo, rather than demanding that the status quo just ups and changes itself.
Score: 17 (27 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 10:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Because what this ad says, explicitly, is that owning the gun doesn't make you a man; when you own the gun, some other omnipotent entity will declare you a man."
Male initiation rituals are almost universal among hunter gatherers. Other men telling you whether you are a man or not:
http://artofmanliness.com/2010/02/21/male-rites-of-passage-from-around-the-world/
To pretend that this is new or a result of modern narcissism is silly.
The problem with the man card is that there is no man card. You can buy stuff but it doesn't work like the actual ritual.
There were miller light commercials on the "man card" too:
http://deadspin.com/5844327/screw-you-and-screw-your-man-card
fucking light beer.
Score: 14 (20 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 11:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Also, why do these two stories count most, when you can find, ... plenty of stories about women stopping rape? [etc]"
An avoided rape tells us less about where things need to change than one that did happen in spite of a large number of people who had chances to intervene. The point being made was that in some cases whole groups of women will ignore a rape going on right in front of them, and people will completely ignore those women. And they're being ignored even though women in similar situations are obvious candidates for "Who's behavior can we easily change in order to stop rapes?".
"Why do the girls at the party count, but the women who changed the way the legal system was handling afterwards not count?"
That a few out of 150 million women were willing to help doesn't disprove that quite a few women were not. One vengeance-fueled slave might kill a few slaveholders, but he isn't going to end slavery.
"And then within is argument, women never get to call the shots in the system, and the system determines young women's behavior, but women, more than anything else, determine young women's behavior."
Exactly. Women enforce an arbitrary set of rules, but for the most part they don't make those rules. You really think that out of all the things they could possibly ask for, 80% of western women want, of their own free will, a diamond engagement ring? "I was going to have him save it for a car or a down payment on a house, but thanks to a De Beers ad campaign and social pressure, now I know what I really want."
Score: 15 (17 votes cast)
January 16, 2013 11:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?"
Although that question didn't occur to me in the 7th grade, my older sister was in the 10th grade at the time, learning about Kent State, and a similar question came to my mind, i.e. "Why didn't the troops just put down their guns?"
While the answer still isn't perfectly clear today, I'm 99% sure it has nothing to do with a "man card".
Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 12:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I could use help trying to explain to my friend how this isn't victim blaming."
Peasants: The Vikings are going to raid our village again!
Knight: Don't worry, I'm here to help and there are enough weapons for everyone. I'll teach you to use them, and we can probably drive them back to the sea with few casualties.
Ps: Why should we do that? Shouldn't the Vikings just realize that what they're doing is immoral?
K: It would be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't - sometimes evil pops up and has to be dealt with. You also have a responsibility to look out for the well being of your friends and family, so...
Ps: Responsibility? Are you saying it's our fault that the village got sacked before?
K: Wait, what? I'm just saying the if you do things differently, they might turn out better. Now, if...
Ps: Victim-blamer! It's not our job to protect ourselves!
K: Well if you won't even try to save yourselves... Good-bye and good luck!
Score: 54 (68 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 12:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hollywood isn't sexist anymore, though. They've stopped using the word "actress" and started calling actresses "actors."
Problem solved!
Score: 9 (13 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 1:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
those women in court would count more if that rape happened while they had tied hands or something...
but if someone was trying to rape me and I would watch bystanders passing by without any action whatsoever, I would not be comforted by awareness that "oh, but in court they will stand for me"...
right after suing a rapist I would sue them as accomplices.
well, the point of article was not to criticize women in general, it was pointing at some cases that are astounding.
yeah, we've accomplished fairly a lot, but everyday life shows that the core hasn't been shaken yet..
and imo follow-worthy female role models could be helpful... (not enough of them though)
Score: 6 (12 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 3:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Speaking of lawyers: I recently read an article about a woman who became a lawyer in order to put her abusive stepfather behind bars. (Which she did.)
That to me is power. Not what you learn but what you do with it.
Score: 20 (24 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 3:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Nice dissection of learned helplessness. Anonymous is not Men, it's an idea silly or a silly idea.
Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 5:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, we are all taught ways to behave. We do not exist in a social vacuum and will never grow to be 'free' in the sense you seem to wish to see it.
And we're also all people who can take responsibility for their lives and choices. You want to be free? Be free, just don't say that 'we' need to change something. This is the type of language that shows that you project your own image of a 'better world' over that individual choice of others.
Score: 5 (13 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 6:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If you have a girlfriend, I feel sorry for her.
Score: -18 (34 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 7:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Could you please explain why do you think so?
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 9:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I am a man in a woman's profession: elementary teacher. Guess the percentage of men who've done anything behind my back; guess the percentage of men. One of them is 0%. The other is less than 50%, but sure not 0%. Seems to fit this post's narrative...
Score: -4 (20 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 9:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, they were barely harmed by the system in the first place. That's why they don't need real power. They have a middle class, and in the case of most of the activists, upper middle class to upper class existence. You don't need to upend a system that works for you. The people who are "feminists" don't NEED real power because the power is on their side. They aren't negatively impacted, if anything they benefit from having two people in top positions while the rest of the peasents watch from the sidelines hoping for a few crumbs. When Daddy runs a business, you have power and advantages -- even if "the system" doesn't officially recognize you. If you have no money and daddy is a plumber, it matters whether "the system" recognizes you. So I would call most feminists basicly hobby civil rights advocates. It isn't that they don't believe in what they're doing, but that if it doesn't happen, they aren't any worse off than they would have been before.
Go back to Django. You have to take on one of the roles, and Django will still be a slave. You can be the white man, the white woman, the black man, or the black woman. Who do you choose? Honestly, the white woman is only slightly lower than the white man, as she gets to benefit from living in the white man's house as a partner -- not an equal partner, this is 1850 or so -- so she gets a lot more benefits as a white woman than she would as a black anything. The black people in that picture are just bit players in the monkeysphere, they don't count as real people. They live in poverty, they can be beaten or sold just because. The wife lives in the big house, she eats the same food made by the slaves, she wears fancy dresses that the white man bought her, she can get educated in elite schools, and so on. Which is why women don't need power. When your life is comfortable, you don't upend the system that supports your comfortable lifestyle. If a real powershift were to happen, either going toward the women or toward the brown people, her life changes. She can no longer lean on the support system that makes her life good. If whitey goes down, she'll have to make her dresses out of curtains rather than silk. If the system goes down, she'll have to fight for the right to get into private schools and colleges and the right to have a high status job against other people who were kept out of her way by "The System." So instead of actually fighting for a change, they fight for symbolic change. Hey look, we have civil rights, I'm in the Senate. Fine, but the reason you don't care that it's symbolic is that you are play-acting civil rights. You never NEEDED civil rights, in fact actual civil rights is dangerous to you, because "The System" has been treating you as one of its own for centuries.
Score: 18 (34 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 10:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I had a flatmate say to me (about the Jewish Holocaust): "Why didn't they resist?" Same assumptions as discussed in this post, in other words.
This article, to some extent, castigates individuals for not pushing past their fear & fighting back. But it's not only fear for one's self (if I don't wear makeup, I'll be a figure of fun), it's also fear for one's family or social group. There are men in Egypt right now who are being paid to rape women - to scare the crap out of women so that they won't take part in the current political protests/movement. And it's working. When they interviewed the men (anonymously) & asked them why they're doing this, there were only two responses: (1) I need the money to eat or (2) I have to support my family.
It's all money & power. The same old story. We talk about slavery like it's a thing of the past but it's here today and we are part of the system. Whenever we buy our groceries, we oppress someone. So I don't think we can point the finger and say "why aren't you rising up?". People ARE rising up. They are always rising up. No revolution took place without years or generations of legwork. Maybe one day money & power won't mean a thing.
Score: 16 (26 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 12:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Who says women are afraid -- I'm saying the opposite, but the jew thing brings up a very good point. They did resist there were uprisings, for example in Warsaw. That happened because there was a real need. What I'm suggesting is that women don't rise up against the system for the same reason the "Good Germans" didn't. Sure the system wasn't perfect, but it also wasn't against them -- if anything the Good Germans (or in the case of Django, the good Housewife) never challenges the system in a real way because the system benefits HER. She's the housewife of a rich man, she's never had to worry about eating or housing or being sold. She never has to worry about whether she'll be allowed to get an education. Her dresses are silk and come from England. Same with the Germans -- they never stood up because the system, while imperfect, worked well for them. Less unemployment, a good highway system (the autobahn was a Nazi project), national pride, and no competition from Jews, Poles, or other undesireables who were "stealing their jobs". That's why the powerful never really go beyond the symbols -- the Matrix works for them. The Matrix protects them.
With the Matrix, Scarlett is a rich southern white girl who goes to parties with handsome men and never has to worry about war, slavery, working or education. Without the Matrix, she's just another poor southern girl with very little money and hungry enough to eat a raw turnip (at least I think it was a turnip). With the Matrix, Germans got to have good paying factory jobs, a rebuilt nation, national pride, and much less inflation. It wasn't perfect. Scarlett couldn't vote, and a German who didn't like the Matrix disappeared, but no one on the right side of the Matrix was suffering. So the Matrix is fine for them, no need to remake the system.
Jews rose up where they could, and where they couldn't they fled or hid. They had to -- the system wanted to kill them. Slaves did much the same -- either passively if they couldn't do anything else (the stupid black man stereotype comes from blacks acting stupid to do less work), or by running (Fredrick Douglass or Harriet Tubman), or by revolution if the numbers are great enough (Tousaint, who overthrew slavemasters in Haiti). But that's the difference, you resist the matrix if it hurts you, you don't care if it's neutral, and you'll protect it if it helps you.
Score: 18 (26 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 2:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's the responsability of those with power and courage and strength (in all it's physical, emotional, intellectual, and psychological forms) to look out for the weaker.
Well, if you have an ethics system that says all of us with any abilities should use them for the good of both ourselves and others. This TENDS to be one of the more socially cohesive ethics systems in which high work ethic and dedication to contribution is encouraged in all members.
That said, some have different types of strengths and some have, quite frankly, smaller capacity to do much impact toward the good of others.
Most of us imagine a humane system would care for the elderly and the disabled despite that some ofthat caregiving might not result is any large gains for society as a whole but because human lives and experiences themselves are worth carrying about even if the human in question has limited ability to contribute.
What's frustrating is that a lot of activism about protecting women from rape involves a desire for higher criminal persecution and more aggressive treatment of rapists by communities and the penal system. Yes a lot of activists also want more use of resporative justice, rehabilitative prisons, and compassionate understanding of mental illness and disability.
So there's a bit of a gap in admitting that maybe a majority of women DO have a bit of a disability at psychological and physical combat with male predators who, look honestly are more frequently skilled predators.
I think it comes to being afraid to admit women might trend toward having areas of weakness- both in muscle tone and behavioral trends- that are more prevailant in women both for social and biological reasons. To me, I am opposed to ablism-- prejudice toward people with less abilities, so it inherently wouldn't matter to me to admit that on average women have certain weakness less common to men OR vice versa. It wouldn't bother me to know that the average is in fact the same between men and women as long as we aren't ablist toward people who are psychological, emotionally, cognitively, or physically less skilled in certain areas.
What is frustrating is when the weaker both demand to be cared for by the able bodied/minded people with more strength and refuse to acknowledge the increased work load that requires for able bodied people and at least attempt to provide acknolwedgement and other contributions that help balance the increased work load for those who are doing ultimately more work.
I also think that all human beings need some help unshacking their minds from what they have been taught and accepted as the status quo because life is comfortable for them that way.
Seeing others in suffering is usually not enough to wake the average person up. We see people in suffering all the time and do nothing and in a world with SO MUCH suffering, we can't really get our hackles raised for every difficulty we see in the world. But we can unite with a common goal of working together to alleviate suffering. That includes all people addressing their own personal weakness as best as possible, with compassion for their own limitations-- and using their skills to help others. It also includes compassion for the limitations of others while encouraging us all to work for the common good.
Score: 9 (21 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 2:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I also think abilities are not static. People defined as "disabled" may not be so if they cultivate their problem areas. People labeled as "normal" but struggling might do better if given acknoledgement they are CURRENTLY disabled or "low functioning" in an area and given the space and support to cultivate strength in that area with less presssure to simply perform better through the use of shaming and social disdain.
Applied to women, I think that for social and possibly biological reasons, many women are more vulnerable to predation. Through training and practice many women can build their resiliency to predators. That doesn't mean the weak, frightened, cowardly, panicked, needy or otherwise vulnerable humans (male or female) deserve the abuse this world will dish out on them. It's on all of us, male and female, to look out for the weak (whether male or female). I think males however look at a fellow weak male and rate performance and ability in a way that men don't want to be labelled, because they are keeping track of who contirbutes what and who should be thus rewarded, usually in pay and social respect. And when a man helps a weak woman-- that sense of "pay" tends to involve enjoying seeing her vulnerability and the ability to render aid because of.. duh.
Whereas women often don't like to keep score of who is weak and who needed help and who contributed what. But since we're trying to erase gender and encourage men and women to thinkthe same way and not have "male" or "female" ways of thinking, we need to examine these "male" and "female" trends in thinking about reward for skills and labelling of weakness or low contributors and how to make a cohesive society that is human to low performers without overburdening the workers to make society function.
IT's weird that women are still allowed to embrace gender (femaleness, being A WOMAN) but men who want to claim male identity- I don't see them in gender discussions as often unless they are MRA's and total assholes.
Score: 3 (19 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wwith the concept of The Matrix comes the Foucauldian concept of the Dominating Discourse. To be "invited" to have a conversation about x or y means that it is going to be framed by them. As Vija Kinski says in DeLillo's Cosmopolis, "There is no outside." As long as they get you to talk about it and vote about it, they do have you. What this post has done is display the "floating signs" acting as masks to dissemble, deny, affirm, etc to fool you. If you can't read the "masks" then you can't even begin to challenge them. I do hope many of you are aware of Kristen Stewart, who is challenging the Hollywood Matrix in her own individual way and is hated for it. Anyway I write about this a lot in a different way and I love this blog. And I always think of Lacan who in the case of the women senators might have said, "How do you know they are women?" There is sex. And then there is gender. Make up is what Judith Butler would say was/is "masquerade" and all that goes with that concept.
Did you see how Kristen Stewart said fug you to Summit and the whole "premiere" red carpet thing with her OBSCENE porno gown at the LA one. You want sex, here it is. Flash away at my ass. You aren't going to get any conversation from her, just some ass action in your fuggin face pap boys. Like Dominique Francon in Fountainhead who wears blaack dress and black hat with black veil to her wedding. Ayn Rand knew all about this shit.
Score: -6 (18 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 4:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Arizona in 1998 saw all five of the top elected governmental offices (governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, and secretary of public education) were held by women. I recall Official Feminists (official enough to be quoted on NPR, anyway) declining to name this a victory for their cause because the women did not uniformly align with traditional feminist causes. Some of them were even Republicans, which was, naturally, disqualifying. I still remember my relief at never having to take an Official Feminist seriously ever again.
Score: 10 (26 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 5:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You know why women wear makeup and perfume?
Because they're ugly and they smell bad.
Heh.
Score: -6 (34 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 10:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Nice article, but shit, you should stop trying to write like Chuck Palahniuk and maybe more people would bother reading this as I wish they did...
Score: -7 (21 votes cast)
January 17, 2013 11:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You know what..its not about wearing or not wearing makeup/perfume..nor it is about being a woman or a man..it is about being human
Score: -5 (11 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 12:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Maybe a typo? Seems there should be a 'don't' in here...
"My point isn't that women have legitimate gripes with the system, or that there isn't sexism still around, my point is that most of what you think is "feminism" is really a work, a gimmick, a marketing scheme"
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 12:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The mind tends to believe in the intellectual shit you feed it with... Some feed it with religious/feminist/ shit some others feed it with knowledge and wisdom... Everything that happens is because of the shit that you feed on.
Wearing a make-up is in no way respecting oneself. It is demeaning of oneself unless you look like shit. As far as "American Masculinity" is concerned any level-headed/sane human won't shoot at another being unless he badly needs to save his own @$$. As for me I consider masculinity is in the dignity with which you should carry yourself along and the urge to excel by competing with the rest and not beheading/killing them to excel.
Score: -10 (24 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 12:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hon, that was a joke I heard in sixth grade.
Forty years ago.
Can we work up a fund for a sense of humor graft here?
I SAID "heh."
Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 3:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I surely must have got dislikes from those who took my comment too personally. :P
Score: -7 (11 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 4:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
My comment is unrelated to this post, but I'd be interested in your take on Lance Armstrong's latest interview with Oprah.
Would he be classified as a psychopath or a narcissist?
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 5:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
seriously,you're writing this shit while thousands of women all over the world are rising up, protesting in india (i wish they would in the US and europe, too), getting shot or jailed in russia, getting raped and blackmailed and fighting for survival and justice afterwards (often in vain, because male policmen and male judges don't think it's so bad), building networks, providing abortions, therapy, shelters, listening, writing books, staging theatre plays, running businesses, fighting for their fucking lives and much more. and you sit behind your computer and say "nah, these women, they don't have it so bad, otherwise they would rise up". have you ever seriously listened to someone who is traumatized by rape, no matter if woman or man? it is fucking hard to keep on living like that. why don't you go out and do something (for example, teach other men not to fucking rape in the first place?)
Score: 4 (46 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 5:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
seriously,you're writing this shit while thousands of women all over the world are rising up, protesting in india (i wish they would in the US and europe, too), getting shot or jailed in russia, getting raped and blackmailed and fighting for survival and justice afterwards (often in vain, because male policmen and male judges don't think it's so bad), building networks, providing abortions, therapy, shelters, listening, writing books, staging theatre plays, running businesses, fighting for their fucking lives and much more. and you sit behind your computer and say "nah, these women, they don't have it so bad, otherwise they would rise up". have you ever seriously listened to someone who is traumatized by rape, no matter if woman or man? it is fucking hard to keep on living like that. why don't you go out and do something (for example, teach other men not to fucking rape in the first place?)
Score: 0 (40 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 6:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I knew a girl who was a sophomore in college and her sister was a freshman. I went out with them and another guy once (one of her "best fiends" apparently). He put some date rape drug into her younger sister's drink(just for fun, he didn't intend to rape her as far as I know), she knew about it and all she did was find it funny. Granted, she's a very open-minded "let the boys be boys" girl. imagine the next time the boy isn't her friend. you can only be so open-minded before your brains fall out.
Score: 0 (20 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 8:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
There's a mitchell and webb sketch that kinda sums up much of what you're saying here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwrK-foCTaQ
I think the perfect line there is "now I'm free to live my life MY way," followed by a big tick. Of course its not freedom, not HER way and the approval is anonymous and external. I often think comedy is the only place you'll find any truth, probably because humor makes it tolerable. We say "it's so true!" then move on regardless.
Awesome article TLP, I love it. We're playing a pea and cups game and grabbing for the cups, not the peas.
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 9:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Someone didn't read the article at all...
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 10:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree JD. I read stuff like this and want to post it to FB, but you know, the people who will read it, will read part of it, i.e. read only the sarcastic parts out of context, and I'll get hosed...
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 10:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, someone didn't read the article. TLP essentially respects women, and is on the side of women who are raped. I think maybe you are all uppity because he might be showing you your way of doing it has been wrong.
And you must be a 20 something, since I can't imagine a way to (...teach other men not to fucking rape in the first place?) No one with extensive life experience would probably not post that...
Score: -1 (21 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 11:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, and while those women in India are protesting, women in America are writing articles about how makeup makes women feel better. Hooray for progress, hooray for protests, hooray for women who are actually doing something. The fact that somewhere, there's someone with XX chromosomes attempting to do the right thing doesn't change the fact that there are a ton of XXs around the world who are stoning women for being promiscuous, slut-shaming, dismissing rape claims, etc etc etc.
I hate this reflexive "You're criticizing the way women act?! YOU MUST HATE WOMEN" attitude. If anyone's wondering where sexist attitudes come from, these types of defensive responses surely contribute. Accept some constructive criticism. It's not chauvinistic to point out female error. Women occasionally act in self-destructive and regressive ways, just like all other human beings on the planet.
For the record, I'm an XX chromosome haver. I love this article because it makes an incredible point: in the end, change is going to have to come about from women, not men. Women have the most to gain from change and the most to lose from things staying the same.
It sounds like you or someone you know may have been violated in this way, and that is fucked up and I'm sorry. It's because rape is so horrible that I think it's so important that women rise up. Saying "Men need to stop raping people" is facile: of course they ought to stop raping people, but they haven't stopped in thousands of years of human history. So women have to make them stop. We have to protect our own. The fact that some women in India are attempting to make this stop is great, but it doesn't negate any of the points in this article.
Score: 12 (26 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 11:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why is it that a boy dressing like a girl gets written off as comedy but a girl dressing like a boy is seen as a sloppy dresser?
Why is there dressing like a 'boy' and a 'girl' in the first place?
Why is society? Why is world?
Brought to you by Whyception.
Score: 0 (26 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 12:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I love this blog. Thanks for this post.
On gender and the speculations about the author:
I'm a woman. In 1993 when I joined the internet I did it with a nickname most people thought was male. I had a child in late 1996 and when I mentioned it online a couple dozen friends flipped out, apologizing to me for having been my email/forum friend for years and not having realized I was a woman, assuring me they would have talked to me differently if they had known, not said certain things. I was astounded. Really? We weren't talking about having a romance together, so what would have been different? I really related to those friends. If it had been different, I probably wouldn't have, so much. I always related well to men. Not so well to other women. Now that I'm older (47) I have to say that by internet I've found more women I relate to, but the internet's big enough that's sure to happen eventually no matter how obscure one's profile.
Online friends and onlookers initially assumed I was a man (I'm told) because my "writing personality" is much more "masculine," in terms of how society seems to rate such things. Logical, judgmental, intellectual. It used to be far more aggressive and snarky but I've mellowed. Or just lost passion for some things perhaps. I've run various internet forums for a couple decades now and you can actually tell the gender ratio of participants, at least, by the style of communication, even if you were to remove names and obvious clues from the conversation, so there is probably something to the assumption and attribution of masculine /feminine communication. Although I would hold this is not a gender thing but a cultural thing that entrains the genders and is recognized by them, much like I believe that most actual prejudice I've encountered is less a racial thing than a cultural thing that is entraining the races and recognized-by race.
(Btw, for so-called masculine communication you'd need to visit bodybuilding forums. For the feminine, visit dieting forums. It's a sort of hilarious comparison. Those things are of course culture and ego effects, not true gender-based communication. We're not using RNA on the internet.)
I was astounded a few years ago to discover how many people actually do not fit into the fully 'male or female' categories. It's like this whole world of biology that I had no idea existed (the internet is so educational). I don't even know what to make of that. Except I think it must be kinda horrible for the people don't fit in those categories. Because they're fine however they are, I mean we are all what we are and so what, but they're definitely living in a culture that not only doesn't support them, it doesn't even realize they exist. I can't even imagine what implications that might have for one's social reality.
A lot of what this author says either I relate to or have previously said (pieces of) myself. And I'm a woman. So I'm not sure why everyone assumes the author must be a male. Perhaps both I and the author are products of identifying with the stronger cultural role so we 'think like men' although that very phrase seems ridiculously wrong for so many reasons. Or not. Maybe it's a guy, I have no idea.
I'm not sure the author's gender is important though. It may affect what they write (now I'm forced to use the plural rather than rendering the author an 'it') of course, but the validity or interest of a given point (or lack thereof) stands on its own, regardless of the reasons someone came up with it.
In fact when someone says "X just said that because they're a {man/woman}" I think: they just twisted the conversation away from the point itself, and onto a personal attack on the writer. If the topic has valid opposing points, make them. If one doesn't, and instead implies some issue on the writer's part is to blame for their having put an idea in print, then I have to figure the responder has no valid points to use for combat, and is emotionally upset about it. In a way it's actually the ultimate example of gender bias in action: that rather than responding to ideas presented, one responds to one's own assumption about the writer based on their (assumed) gender, instead.
Score: 28 (32 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 12:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hmm, let's see now, (final paragraph)
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/07/obama-creates-a-terrorist-haven-in-mali.html
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 12:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree. When any critique or even observation is made about women it tends to result in women suddenly ranting about how hateful the others are -- the response of a 5 year old -- which is vastly more destructive to the good of and representation of women than any man could be.
quote: Saying "Men need to stop raping people" is facile: of course they ought to stop raping people, but they haven't stopped in thousands of years of human history.
That's true, but that is partly due to cultural hysteria and overreactive response, in my view.
Date rape that happens in the middle of making out with someone at 1am is still wrong but it's not AS wrong as drugging someone for it, or tackling a stranger in parking lot, or coercing your secretary, and as long as culture reacts with knee-jerk broad-strokes to such issues, everyone including women will pull back from accusing and pursuing, because the events that follow seem too extreme.
The same goes for pedophilia. Touching a 16 year old's privates is wrong but not as wrong as if they're 7 and not as wrong as having actual sex with them, and as long as even feeling up a 13 going on 18 year old will get a man statutory rape prison time, his entire family -- including all its women -- are going to be protecting him. A little more sanity on the "spectrum" of sexual crimes, a little more "confidentiality and required counseling" as opposed to newspaper public humiliation and ruination and jail time, would go a long way toward making both men and women willing to pursue people for these crimes.
I might add that I've experienced both issues in my past, neither officially reported, and so these thoughts come in part from experience and related thinking -- although, as I said in a previous comment, one's ideas stand on their own merit regardless of one's reason for having them.
Score: 13 (35 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 1:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
PJ,
You wrote:
I'm not sure the author's gender is important though.
It's not only not important, it's irrelevant if the reader is interested in considering the content of the essay.
On the other hand, Alone's gender is supremely relevant if you simply don't like what was written -- then the reader can dismiss the essay in its entirety through an ad hominem interpretation.
I've NEVER understood the obsession with Alone's gender. Which hammer is superior: one forged by a man, a woman, or a robot?
Score: 25 (31 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 1:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. granted Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein a $13.3 million stock bonus for 2012, up 90 percent from a year earlier, as the bank’s shares and profit climbed.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 5:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not talking about India. In India, women are actually rising up (actually they're rising up in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan) -- because they actually lack any sort of power. I'm talking about the US and the American "Women's lib" movement, which is run by women who are from fairly well off backgrounds, generally have multiple college degrees from prestegous universities and generally don't have to worry about the actual oppression like what happens in India or Pakistan or Afghanistan where going to school as a woman is a life-threatening activity. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I'll admit I should have specified AMERICAN feminism, but what I wrote holds true for American feminists. It really doesn't matter much in America.
Want an example? Fine. American feminists love to complain that they get around 70% of a man's paycheck. Which is a problem. However, it ignores quite a bit. Men are far more likely to work longer hours, to take jobs requiring travel, or be willing to relocate for their job or for a promotion. Also, women in most cases, are the family's SECOND income. Women for the most part are not working to feed their families, they're working to supplement the male's income, and as such she works around HIS schedule and moves if HE gets a promotion. Before you get all excited, yes I know there are single mothers out there, and I think one income should support a family, but it's also not the norm for most families. So why isn't that more of a front burner issue? Because the women in question can quite often rely on hubby's income to pay rent and feed the kids and sock a little away for junior's college. It's not a big deal because it's not a survival need, it's simply a bunch of rich white women with graduate degrees from elite colleges whining that they don't get pay equity. If they needed it, they would find a way to earn it, instead, they publish a statistic and cry "poor us".
Compare that to places where women are in real danger. Consider the women taking real control of their lives by going to school in Pakistan. A real feminist girl in Pakistan fighting for actual power (literacy) was shot in the face in Pakistan. That's a real fight, and those women will not be satisfied with merely geting an honorary degree, they want literacy. They won't be satisfied with personal cab service in Saudi Arabia, they want to drive a real car. Do you think women in India are going to be satisfied with a symbolic end to sex slavery?
It's different in America precisely because we have it so good here. I'm a woman, I don't like the plastic feminists because they are basicly in a make-believe kind of world where they're "oppressed" even though they live better than 95% of the planet. They aren't fighting for those brownskins mostly because in order to have the real change that would make women's lives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or India, you'd have to weaken American power in favor of a UN strong enough to do something, and that would mean losing their (derived) power that they get for having married into upper class families that directly benefit from the Matrix.
Score: 12 (36 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 5:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
why do you hate women? It's in every word you write. I feel like I'm being slapped around, which makes it hard to imagine what your real points are.
You feel like you're being slapped around, because TLPs words reflect those of your inner critic; making them real.
Someone shows you your reflection, and you use it to put makeup on.
What does that say about you?
Score: 18 (32 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 5:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I was astounded a few years ago to discover how many people actually do not fit into the fully 'male or female' categories.
PJ,
I was just having a conversation about that very subject! I read something written by a transgendered man (F->M) recently, but to me he still sounded like a female.
Then again I've read stuff by (regular, heterosexual) women that sounded 100% male.
PS. That said, I'd bet everything I have on the doc being male. The speculation about his gender was amusing at first but now it's getting tiring...
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 6:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Why don't they just rise up?"
Because...they're actually bone-deep aware of their inferiority at running things, even though they don't like to admit it?
Because they know even their "oppressors" follow laws and any revolt by their compatriots would quickly turn lawless?
Because they have it pretty good as is?
Because the ones smart enough to grasp all the nuances can grasp all the consequences and decide NOT to rise up?
Score: -8 (32 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 6:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Because the ones smart enough to grasp all the nuances can grasp all the consequences and decide NOT to rise up?
I completely understand what you're saying, but still relieved the suffragettes and every other group of people who fought with blood, sweat and tears to change the lot of future generations didn't think this way.
Quite grateful really.
Score: 20 (26 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 6:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I always said in some situations I'd rather be a slave in the parlor than 'better red than dead.' At least in the former way, I can be best positioned to help others, possibly more trusted to escape, and survive hopefully with some lack of misery. The latter way, I'm just beaten and then dead.
When people talk about rising up I think that is a lot of it. The choice is not "struggle and free your people." The choice is "struggle and be miserable or dead." Maybe enough dead people and time together will result in your people freed. Maybe. Or stomped more firmly into the ground. But you're still dead. So a lot of the fear, I think is a valid fear, of the consequences of 'rising up.'
And in the USA, I think there's a more pervasive and oddly, perhaps even more destructive fear: that it just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how many people, how much media, you can bring to rallies or even to grassroots bills. It's not gonna matter much. And no grassroots issue of import will have funds to outspend lobbyists for corps likely affected and on the other side. Sure, register to vote. Like it matters. Everyone hated Bush but O's done vastly worse things x3 in his time and oddly despite articles even in NYT and such it's like nobody's worrying about it. Maybe because if you can't DO anything about it, you might as well just figure you don't matter to it, your voice doesn't matter to it, your vote doesn't matter to what you truly want, so why bother. Why rise up?
Everything's got to have a justification. Sometimes 'the moral of it' is enough. Sometimes, especially if you have family, it's not. I don't see fear of rising up as being a moral backbone failing or something. I see it as being, often, a practical concern.
Of course, the fear of not wearing makeup is not the same as the fear of insisting on women's schooling in Saudi...
Score: 13 (15 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 6:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There are a lot of invisible limits put on women's advancement. Some of them are of their own making, or at least aspects of life to which they acquiesce. Others are not so much so. I would find it very interesting if the authorities that dwelleth in the land of psychiatry were to really promote a standard for women's health, rather than insisting on female pathology. What if they said to women, "Oh, well, you know, you seem to be oppressed. How about some reality testing? It might be one way to discover what parts of the oppressive circumstances are your own and what belongs to other people?"
I guess such an invitation could be construed as yet another level of oppression, and in certain circumstances, that may well be true. But, there is a lot of pleasure in reality testing. We did it as kids until we were ordered not to continue our own experiments with the world, but instead adapt and conform.
Reality testing can be the ultimate, most pleasurable thing to do.
But psychiatry itself has traditionally put up a railing that has prevented women from testing too much reality. Isn't a woman who does that considered to embody what it means to be "insane"? She is refusing to grow up to accept her socially allotted position. She wants her childhood to go on, and on, and on.
The same principle applies to men, although to a lesser extent, since they are deemed less fragile than women, and therefore seem to have less to lose by testing reality for themselves. Bear Grylls gets a lot of kudos for his adventurism, but a female counterpart would probably not so much.
A female Bear Grylls, who threw off her makeup and went wild would very probably be accused of the following:
1. Exhibitionism
2. Thinking she is male (gender identity disorder)
3. Escapism
4. Masochism
5. Social disruption (depending on how 19th Century we get)
6. etc.
In fact, she would seem to have dropped from her relatively good position in society to become a moron.
Consequently, it would seem, a lot of feminism has to be bourgeois feminism, aspiring to climb higher up the social ladder by accepting most of the existing social values, including those of traditional femininity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMDtCXSlbPA
Score: 20 (26 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 7:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A feminist friend noted that TLP comes off as a feminist, since only a true feminist would think to blame the women who were there for not intervening.
Score: 24 (38 votes cast)
January 18, 2013 8:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You made a lot of points that are going to take time to digest, but I wanted to note that I like the balance of tone. It doesn't "sound" over-edited like the last couple of articles, which I know actually means you edited the hell out of it, and still has enough sarcasm and authority to hold the attention.
It was a lot of ground to cover, but you kept it compelling.
When's the book coming out?
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 12:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Does anyone commenting here actually believe the author of this blog is a psychiatrist?
I don't !!!
Score: -11 (27 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 12:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't either. Having been a psychoanalyst for almost 25 years I would say the narcissistic lingo is down pretty pat in sound bites. The knowledge of "masking" is Lacan but not Lacan with any very deep understanding. If you read Diane Rubenstein's This Is Not A President she does "masquerade" in spades with Hillary. There is no way you can read that chapter without having a clear understanding and many laughs along the way. Rubenstein teaches at Cornell and she knows Butler and all the rest of them.
Some of the understanding is in this post, but it is a mish mash and the style does not reflect that kind of knowing. Nice catch by the way. I just kind of gave up after one try as the commentors were all over the place. I must prefer twitter.I am bored with people's projections from their own baggage. Get thee to a couch and pay to do it.
Score: -4 (24 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 12:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe you can't put together the argument because it is victim blaming?
Really, don't take this article seriously just cause the author can write well enough to twist messed-up ideas into a seemingly sound argument. I seriously doubt the author of this blog is any more than a well read person that likes to get a reaction out of people.
Score: -18 (30 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 12:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think it's a well written post that needed saying. But make-up falls into Judith Butler's province of masquerade. Victim blaming is just this thing where everyone has been turned into a victim about almost everything. It has become so widely used that it is meaningless. Like saying fuck. It's a sound bite. A ready-made.
Score: 4 (14 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 1:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Psychoanalyst?
You've said it all.
The psychoanalytic approach should have been made extinct decades ago. Not only has it contributed to propagating myths, but it only exists to maintain the name of Freud and his questionable approach.
Score: 1 (15 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 2:28 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"I must prefer twitter."
Good god. By all means go find it, instead.
Score: 3 (13 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 2:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's always easy to condemn something you haven't experienced. But I have read Foucault on it. And of course Zizek is an analyst, a Lacanian one. It's a valuable way to have to look at things.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 2:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The atmosphere there is better. The comment boards are full of anger and hate.
Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 4:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm pretty sure he also asked why women don't literally band up and beat rapists. Also, women are banded up more than ever, they have power, but they are using their power for stuff that is not in their best interest
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 4:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
maybe because men who are proud of being men don't engage in "gender discussion"?
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 1:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The two web sites: (1) The Roanoke Colony wikipedia (2) Caroll A. Deering wikipedia. The two web sites relate unusual mysterious disappearances of people from two separate different incidents. One in the mid 1580s, the second one in 1921. Both incidents occured near Cape Hatteras North Carolina on the North Carolina coast. Possibly less than fifty miles from each other's locales where the people disappeared within each locale and within and as the unique historical events they were, as such,that comprised each occurrence.Folkore states the mysterious spiritual forces of the Bermuda Triangle swept the Roanoke colonists that inhabited the near outerbanks regions of North Carolina, as well as the crew members of the Maine company built 20th century schooner, the Carroll Deering---the Bermuda Triangle swept these people into the spiritual world for good never to return to earth again. A quote from the Caroll Deering wikipedia article: 'Carroll A. Deering was a five masted commercial schooner found run aground off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in 1921. its crew mysteriously missing. The Deering is one of the most written about maritime mysteries in history, with claims that it was victim of the Bermuda Traingle although the evidence points towards a mutiny or possible piracy." End quote. Interestingly the Caroll Deering was found ashore near Buxton N.C. and the first investigators found an empty ship with all items and clothes even food cooking on the stove---all these items were in order with no signs of scuffle or other disorderly destructive actions within the ship. The Lost Colony items too of the encampment were found undisturbed also for the most part. Both wikipedia articles carries much more information on the the two occurrences that are similar in a lot of regards.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 7:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I disagree. Women are good at running things. They generally are the only ones holding the family together while working a job on the side. If you can run a house, you can figure out how to run most social institutions.
It's about NEED. Women in the US don't NEED to run things. And as such it's likely easier to simply delegate the task of running society to the men rather than take the stress on for yourself. Look at the pictures of the president after 4 years, the stress of running the nation ages them about 20 years. Why bother if you can get the man to do what you want by virtue of being married to him. You get a lot of power by being at the president's side. You don't think Michelle has influence equal to the Secretary of State? Bull, if anything she has more. She has private access to the most powerful man on the planet for longer than most people on the planet, as well as having an emotional connection to him that makes her word worth a lot more than other people he talks to all day. She can talk him into things that no other person on the planet could, and she doesn't need to be accountable to anyone else. That's more power than Vladimir Putin has with the president and he has a standing army and nukes. Why bother with the stress of working your way into a powerful position when you can marry power and get them to do what you want without breaking a sweat.
Score: 2 (26 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 9:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Which women are good at running things? All of them? Which things?
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
January 19, 2013 10:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Life isn't about 'not breaking a sweat'. One should strive to accomplish something, to live and to achieve. No one needs to run anything, but some people choose to try.
The good news is, it doesn't matter whether you think women ought to 'run things', any more than it matters whether the commenters who think women are naturally inferior at...whatever. Women who are going to be successful don't need your permission or approval, and the women who need approval and permission were never going to be anything anyway.
Score: 4 (14 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 4:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
1.) Can you deconstruct this music video? I'm sure I would find something useful from your analysis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlyXNRrsk4A
2.) What happened to pastabagel? Will I never see a post from him again? I'm deeply saddened if that's the case. I hope he is okay.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 5:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"If you can run a house, you can figure out how to run most social institutions."
stupidity overload
Score: 7 (21 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 6:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Whereas women often don't like to keep score of who is weak and who needed help and who contributed what."
stupidity giga-explosion
Score: 14 (22 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 4:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Goodness, a little mascara and lipstick merely makes me feel more polished, put together. It is not about sexuality or power. Combing my hair also makes me feel ready to face the day. So does brushing my teeth and putting on a real bra. There is a huge difference between simple grooming and being fully 'made up'.
Score: -6 (22 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 6:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ability has nothing to do with it. What I'm pointing out is that unlike other American minorities, women are in a position where they can get power without needing to fight for it, which is why unlike most other groups, there's no real push to get real power. If you can have power by sexing the President, it doesn't matter if you actually become the president. If you can influence the CEO of Goldman Sachs the same way, then you don't need to scrape and claw your way into power, you don't need to seek the jobs that grant real power, etc. Because you have much easier routes to getting the things that power provides.
I think any woman of average intelligence could run most companies and political institutions. Cathrine the Great could run Russia as an absolute dictator -- even though she wasn't even Russian (she was German). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_Great So if a woman can do that, don't tell me a modern woman couldn't run America.
But ability is only a part of the picture here. What I think the picture shows is that women (American women anyway) are not oppressed enough to need to take over and thus change the system. If it were necessary, it would be obvious by the choices that women are making. Women need power in Pakistan, so you have girls as young as 12 risking their lives to get an education which leads to power. A 12 year old got shot in the face for wanting the power that comes with literacy in Pakistan. Women in Saudi Arabia drove illegally -- they didn't ask first, they didn't march on Rydiah seeking for a law that would make it OK, they just got in the car and drove. Compare that to any number of "protests" by people who actively benefit from the Matrix. Women are testifying in Congress for free birth control -- and their star was a graduate student attending Georgetown, a private college. In other words, the best argument the had for "give us free birth control" is an upper middle class woman in a private university working on a graduate degree. If it was a need, they might have bothered to find a woman who wasn't upper class, wasn't attending a private college, and certainly one that wasn't working on a Master's in liberal arts. Everything about that picture screams "we aren't serious". If they wanted to make that kind of case, they would have found a woman who was a single mother and worked for an hourly wage. Problem being that if they did that, the case might make sense. A poor woman living paycheck to paycheck can afford neither pregnancy nor birth control, so it would be easy to point to such a thing and say "see, people need this".
I think the same is true of Occupy Wall Street. The reason that it never went anywhere is that it never represented a real need. The kids protesting were the children of the elites. They had enough money to not need to work on school breaks or after classes, so they had time to protest. Which they sort of did, if drum circles count as a protest. It's a protest in favor of slightly better positions by people who have gotten so much from the Matrix that the idea of changing the Matrix is literally unthinkable. The Matrix is why they have the leisure time to protest the Matrix. Daddy was a rich guy because of the Matrix, and he bought them a degree at some private university, and will get them a high paying job high up in the Matrix. So when they protest, they do it by posting stupid notes about themselves on Twitter and having a campout with a big drum circle. Real protests would be something like what happened in Greece -- you know where not being able to find a job means no food. Amazing how the threat of hunger focuses the brain on results.
Score: 10 (20 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 6:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My favorite part about this comment is the part where you equate putting on mascara with brushing your teeth. What, will my eyelashes fall out if I don't apply mascara every day? Am I a disgusting slob for not wearing it?
Sometimes I wear makeup, and mostly I don't, and although it changes the way I look, I mostly feel the same way about myself no matter what I'm wearing.
Score: 11 (17 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 7:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." Assata Shakur
(found it on social networks, can't guarantee she really said so)
but my intuition whispers: appealing to the moral sense of those oppressing means asking for mercy, which is the clearest signal for both sides where the power is.
Score: 17 (23 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 7:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Interesting read, as always, but why don't you have a problem with Django's simultaneous portrayal as hero and blatant racist?
Instead of decrying violence and tyranny as abstractions (remember it was Africans who sold other Africans to to Americans), he decries "White People", All of the White People. He explicitly states he loves killing White People, he explicitly kills DiCaprio's Wife-- why?-- he explicitly kills those lower-class mining workers whom the system forced into working with slavery.
Imagine if there were a movie about the horribleness Native Americans faced against Europeans, but the native protagonist butchers innocent Europeans instead... [continued]
Score: -4 (14 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 7:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
[continued from above] Hell, why the fuck didn't you relate how everybody in the theater clapped when the white woman was killed (implication of evil) but NO ONE cares that she was presumedly forced into everything ( Suffragism) didn't exist yet). Django's murder of a disenfranchised women is as bad if not worse than the slavery he experienced.
God, psychiatrist, you're slacking.
Score: -7 (17 votes cast)
January 20, 2013 10:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Freedom and liberation are two different concepts. You are confusing them.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 2:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
People asking how they can change the system: the first, and most important, act is to simply be aware of the system and how it shapes your goals, your thoughts, your ideas, your perceptions, your language. Asking how to change the system isn't the right question. Once you're aware of the system, you are free, psychologically, to make your own decisions. Some of those decisions will seem to go along with the system, some of them will seem to go against it. But in all cases you will be making them with a clear mind and a clear conscience, without any shame (or other bad thoughts/emotions) due to whatever-the-system-has-built-into-you. I think that this is all that can be asked of any individual. The system is too big to be changed much directly, but if a number of people start independently making decisions which are essentially orthogonal to the system, there is a potential for change, but it will not be directed change, or change that can be predicted. That's the thing about orthogonality, it doesn't fit in the existing paradigms.
Score: 17 (17 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 4:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
But in truth when populations have high quantities of abusive, angry, violent, raging, depressive, chemically dependant men-- I have to ask-- who is raising these men, what the fuck is happening in their lives, and why are they so miserable and disturbed?
This.
Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 4:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
of course, only a true man-hating feminist wouldn't expect anything from the men present. how many girls are even supposed to have been there? were they asked why they didn't intervene? were they held back, forced to watch? these are athletes you're talking about, i imagine them being physically intimidating.
but oh yeah, it must be the fault of american feminism. because every good american college girl is a feminist. lol.
the article talks about "women" and "feminism" but it has gotten quite clear, that you're talking about the US. so much for narcicissm.
Score: -13 (23 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 5:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"these are athletes you're talking about, i imagine them being physically intimidating." so if a rapist is physically intimidating, girls should do nothing to protect one of their own- just run home and write a scathing post about how the patriarchal culture promotes raping. I think you missed the point anyway
Score: 15 (23 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 8:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Just started reading your site a couple weeks ago. I don't think I'm ever going to stop now. This is probably the only blog on the web that can talk about Django Unchained and women's makeup in the same sentence and still be coherent.
I had a friend who used to love makeup until her boyfriend told her that he didn't like her with makeup on because her natural beauty was more attractive. She always thought this was very sweet, but to me it always seemed perverse. Was her natural beauty like Superman, and makeup her Kryptonite? Seemed more insulting than anything that he would say she's MORE beautiful without makeup, as if her beauty to him was dependent on so transient a thing.
Score: -7 (15 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 9:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What you are saying is just raise your consciousness. If you were correct then Foucault would not have spent his life detailing this subject. analyzing the Grid, the Matrix as it is called here without referring to Foucault's work. And Foucault is more revolutionary than anyone here commenting as he has explicitly outlined how you do resist, and how important it is to do so, how important Fearless Speech" is.
The problem with all comment boards is that people comment who haven't seriously studied what they are commenting upon. Go read Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilization, The History of Sexuality, Judith Butler on masquerade (make -up) and some of the wonderful work being done on these topics. The Last Psychiatrist touches on all this but is stuck in the psychological Dominating Discourse of Psychology and Narcissism. Not insignificant but not effective either.
Score: -4 (12 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 11:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I have to ask: Is there anything we can do to stop the gears of the machine? Or are we only limited to ourselves and should focus on improving ourselves in every way possible?"
In honesty, no. The last time a group of people completely rejected the current system was the US Revolution. And even then, the Founders found out they could not reject the entire system, but were forced to take it on to remain 'free'. The true power players are doing a wonderful job of obscuring themselves this time. If you wanted to revolt, and had 100 million people to revolt with, who would you kill? What has happened is the system has re roped the US in, and this time the hooks are so deep we'd have to end up killing half the country to truly be free, and we'd all risk killing the wrong half and might still be in slavery at the end. The only way to true freedom at this point is rejecting everything, but can you hunt, kill, prepare and cook food on your own? Of course not. You might be able to learn, but many people are even beyond that. All of us have become so entangled that seeing an actual way out is almost impossible.
And how can you improve yourself? To what standards would that improvement be measured? Can anyone find a standard that hasn't been tainted by this machine?
But technology itself could be a way out. That is why the internet is so feared, and 'copyright' is trying to be foisted on everyone for everything. We might have an exist strategy with 3d printers, and that type of tech. Or we might just be enslaved even more.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 12:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The questions you are asking have been answered by Foucault. American universities are embracing continental Philosophy, but there are distinctly American issues of tenure and teaching and research jobs fitting for a PhD. These are shrinking. So there are not so many original thinkers out there but those who are rehashing the same old same old.
First you have to understand power. Power is in a relation with knowledge. It is power/knowledge. The two can never be separated. You cannot hold power, take it, give it away, bestow it, etc. Each feeds the other and they are wedded. They are the Grid. The Matrix. That is what the Matrix is. BUT wherever there is power/knowledge, there is resistance. The strategy is to find your local weak spot and lean on it. OR to address the greatest issue of your time. In our case it is surveillance and confinement. By splitting up resistance into political fights, thinking in terms of revolution which falls in the classic Hegelian dialectical Dominating Discourse only cements you in the grid deeper. If you ever get this far then go on to Jean Baudrillard in his book Forget Foucault. This is where Don DeLillo's Cosmopolis comes in. If you can read and understand that 200 page novel, you will have it. Cronenberg did not so don't bother with the movie. Be very aware of Zizek and all he writes and says and does.
Score: -8 (14 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 3:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I like the part where the author says [someone] misses the point, and actually its: [drum roll...] narcissism.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 7:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow. This is pretty fucked up. Aside from the insightful commentary on body modification in service of femininity, this is just unfortunate and wrong. Also, it might help if you used fewer instead of less when you meant fewer.
Score: -16 (22 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 7:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awEvWxNftig
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 7:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The post is really Judith Butler's work on feminine masquerade. One of the reasons to come out of her work is that masquerade deflects masculine aggression. It does. Gender Trouble is one of Butler's books among many on similar topics. Gender issues, gender being socially constructed, while sex is biological. The French do not have two words for this as we do in English. The Last Psychiatrist has framed it in psychological Discourse, so it is drawn out and full of psychoanalytical and psychological terminology like narcissism etc. It sounds cool and is very interpretive enticing discussion on into the next month of Sundays. Try Butler instead if you are interested in this subject of masquerade. It goes much deeper than just make up.
Score: -5 (15 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 9:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh for fucks sake. So much wrong it's not worth it. For one, giving FluffPo credit. You might as well call the lifetime movie channel a feminist propaganda tool.
Fucking not even worth debating shit this stupid.
Score: -8 (26 votes cast)
January 21, 2013 11:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode in on, you sexist piece of human garbage.
And fuck everyone who likes this too, you misogynistic shitlickers.
Oh, and you're all stupid and don't understand how basic facts and numbers work. Stay in school, kids! You dumb sister fucking redneck shits.
Score: -32 (42 votes cast)
January 22, 2013 3:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
oh, sorry but zizek is quite useless suggestion... he contradicts himself way too often, is tangeled in his own "ideologies" and even though he is a very good observer, he is too quick to come with conclusions which often do not lack his personal biasis... too much in love with his mind to avoid color blindness
Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
January 22, 2013 4:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
O Sorry you missed the point. When you are in Zizek's presence you are witnessing a truly original mind at work. He is creatively thinking out a problem before your ears. He does not PRODUCE a hard and fast theory of anything, only a new way of thinking about it. and no he is not tangled in ideologies as he deconstructs them. He is uncomfortable. Now Foucault feels like the inside of your mind just got scoured with steel wool and reordered. Everything is still there, but everything is in a place where it should be. Baudrillard comes along and blows up Foucault by taking him farther and further that he ever had a mind to go. But if you read Zizek, say his new Hegel book, you will not feel the same. It is a very difficult book and demands a wide reading background for resonance. Women love him because he is more a feminist than the other two I mentioned. The Last Psychiatrist suffers from not really being "into" continental philosophy.
Score: -11 (11 votes cast)
January 22, 2013 6:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You're a really infuriating writer, TLP. So much of what you write is insightful and brilliant, and yet you ask that we take so much on assumption, and make so many completely unverified and downright illogical assertions which we are forced to take as fact for the rest of your arguments to add up.
Also interesting that you reference Tarantino here. Like him, you need a really good editor.
Score: 9 (21 votes cast)
January 22, 2013 9:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know if we specifically can change the system. Let's be real here. We Americans are the global 1%, and frankly if you're a middle class or higher white American, you are in the 0.1% range. We are the system. Wanna know why air polution in China is so bad that a fire went unnoticed? We did that, because we A) are too special to make those trinkets, thus we outsourced the jobs to China along with the air pollutions, and B) we refuse to pay a higher premium for the luxury of a safe workplace for the Chinese slaves who make that stuff. Wanna know why sex slavery is still a thing in India -- we would rather have cheap Indian labor than worry about the plight of actual Indians.
The first step is to see that. And the second step is to realize that you don't actually want it to change. In fact the more you protest the less you actually care. Most of the stuff we do is about easing our feelings of guilt, not making life actually better. If we wanted to make life better, we would stop trading with countries that are dictatorships, who don't respect human rights, who exploit people, and so on. Instead, we do little feel good things, buy specialty mints that supposedly feed the hungry or protect the rainforest, or buy a few scattered "fair trade" goods. Makes you feel good about being a slaveowner when you throw a few crumbs to the slaves. But it won't change because we've shut most people out of the possibility of power, and those who have power are benefitting from said power and so invested in the Matrix that they don't give a fuck about the people at the bottom.
That's why overthrowing the Matrix is a failed project from this end. We won't change the system, we'll tweak it. It's working just the way we want it to. America and NATO allies uber alles, with special favors for countries that joined the Matrix and adopted Matrix culture (ie Japan and Korea) and screw the rest of them. Which is of course why nobody in the US cares about international news -- our armies and economic power will keep the slaves in line.
Score: 8 (14 votes cast)
January 22, 2013 12:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I like the term Croatan, used over the picture on the incoming women's congressional group. Croatan is an Indian tribe, most likely inhabiting the outerbanks of the North Carolina that potentially were involved in the disappearance of the Roanoke COlongy in the mid 1580's; between 1584-1587. There whereabouts remaing a mystery today, over 400 years later. In anycase keeping up the issue of mysterious disappearances, the interesting case of the largest ship in U.S. Navy in 1918 disappeared in the Bermuda Triange between March 4-10 1918, the ship was called the USS Cyclops (AC-4). The following wikipedia article: USS Cyclops (AC-4) related the following information on this unusual disappearance. Quote: "USS Cyclops (AC-4) was one of the four Proteus-class colliers built for the United states Navy several years before World War I....THe loss of the ship and 306 crew and passengers without a trace within the area known as the Bermuda Trianglesometime after 4 March 1918 remains the single largest loss of life in the U.S. Naval Hisotry not direcetly related to combat." End quote. The article went on to state 'the Naval History & Heritage Command' related the Cyclops ---probably sank in an unexpected storm" but the cause is unknown. The wikipedia article carries a picture of the ship sitting in the Hudson River. The ship left Rio de Janerio on February 16, entered Bahai - February 20, one notable sailor on board the Cyclops was the African American mess attendent Lewis H. Hardwick. Lewis Hardwick was the father of Herbert Lewis Hardwick, known as the "The cocoa kid" - African puerto Rico welterweight boxer who won the world colored welterweight and middlweight boxing championsships. He boxed in the 1930s and 1940s.
The Cyclops sister ships: The Nereus and PRoteus also vanished in the north Atlantic during World War II. They were transporting heavy loads of mettallic ore, a cargo similar to the Cyclops load when the cyclops disappeared. This information suggests structural defiencies in the ship's construction could have caused the Cyclops and her sister ships to sink, perhaps.
In anycase, the interesting trait of the name Cyclops is that cyclops is an ancient Greek mythological being that has an eye in the middle of its forehead. This eye in the middle of the forehead is also similar to the tisra til, a spiritual eye that exists in the middle of the human forehead and in certain religions, especially the religion Ecaknkar, the tisra til or this spiritual eye of the forehead, can transport the soul or rather the soul, as such, known as the genuine essence of a human being, into the spiritual worlds. Such an action makes a separation of the physical nature of the molecular world around us---separating the person's essence or soul 'with and /into' the spiritual world. The Greek mythical being the cyclops possesses an eye in the middle forehead in the same location as the spiritual eye, the latter also known as the tisra til.
Maybe the congressional women in the above article can form a committe to launch a technological search and find mission in the Bremuda traingle Atlantic ocean waters in order to find the undersea wreckages of this vessels, since the technology is so advanced today to find such items in the undersea domains of the off east coast U.S.
Score: -8 (10 votes cast)
January 22, 2013 3:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
One more followup on the previous Jan 22, 2013 post on the USS Cyclops. THis post adresses the sister ships, also colliers, of the USS Cyclops: The USS Nereus and The USS Proteus that disappeared within 45 days of each other at the end of 1941, that is around December 1941. The wikipedia rticle USS Nereus (AC-10)_ listed the following information: "USS Nereus (AC-10) was one of four proteus-class colliers built for the United States Navy during World War I. Named for Nereus the Greek acquatic deity from Greek mythology. Nereus was laid down on 4 December 1911 and launched on April 26 1913." The information continues: "Nereus was lost at sea sometime after 10 December 1941 while steaming from St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands (along the same route her sister ship, Cyclops had disappeared) with ore destined to be transferred to a allied aircraft carrier. Nereus operated out of Montreal carrying bauxite from the Carribean to aluminum plants in U.S. and Canada." End of information from the wikipedia article.
The web site: "Gallery: Lost in the Bermuda Trianlge" Remy Meline , LIvescience Date: 21 JUly 2011 carries the following information: "USS Nereus was lost at sea sometime after December 10, 1941 as it made its way to Portland Maine from St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands. It disappeared with a crew of 61 along the same route its sister ship, the USS Proteus had vanished from the previous month." End quote. All three colliers, with Greek mytholigcal names vanished mysteriously without a single speck of any molecular evidence of either the ships or the crew members existing today. The whereabouts of ship and crew of the three colliers is still not known.
A futher interesting description of the Cyclops captain George Worsley is contained in the wikipdeia article on the USS Cyclops. He evidently was an alchoholic that given to overbearing and at times cruel actions and behaviors to the ship's crew. He would curse and berate certain sailors, and at one time chased an ensign around the cabin with a pistol. Also he could be found steering the ship in a most drunken state, in his long underwear and a bowler hat, zig zagging through the ocean lanes at night. Another web site information stated that the USS Cyclops fateful trip that led to its vansihing---on board were two U.S. Sailors in much trouble and were being transported for eventual execution. I guess Captainn George Worsley could have steered the ship--- with them as well as a U.S. ambassador from Brazil? who also was on board the Cyclops,---into the realms of eternity with bowler hat on in his pajamas, with a bottle of whiskey in one hand. The Hugh Hefner of the Bermuda Triangle, perhaps, Worsley tended to resemble in a very vague manner. He also ran a bar in San Francisco. In anycase back to the picture of the incoming women in congress, with the word croatan, I wonder if the picture relates the male world is vansihing mysteriously in Washington. Gotta check what the Croatans are doing these days. but I think they disappeared too some centuries back.
Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
January 22, 2013 4:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I left out one other interesting item on the previous Harry Horton post centering on the USS Nereus, USS Proteus, and a personality profile of the USS Cyclops captain, George Worsely. The following: "from wikipedia: "USS Proteus (AC-9)" October 31, 1911 USS Proteus (AC-9) was laid down. *Her third sister ship Jupiter, was converted into the very first U.S. aircraft carrier renamed Langely." There is some prominent facets surrounding these ships, the Cyclops, Proteus, Nereus and now the Jupiter. Not only their disappearances, but the Cyclops was the largest U.S. Navy ship during the pre - World War I era, and the Jupiter was converted to the first U.S. aricraft carrier. So the Jupiter was a significant transition ship, in that,---- the Jupiter embarked the creation of a major onset class of U.S. Navy vessels, ----the aircraft carrier. Today the aricraft carriers have thoroughly extinguished the necessity of battle ships, since there are no U.S. Battleships in operation in the U.S. Navy---this ship was mainstay in the U.S. Navy during World War II and was used extensively for support on land military operations. In fact the last U.S. battleship in operation went out of service within the last 18 months. From all the vanishings of these colliers, the third sister ship of the three colliers: Nereus, Proteus and Cyclops: the Jupiter,--the Jupiter was converted into another type of naval vessel: the aircraft carrier. All four ships had Greek mythological names. Reminds me of the Greek myth Narcissus who became or was involved with another deity who became an echo in the hills of Greece. A converting into an echo, another subsequent being, that is, as the myth related. And here the USS Jupiter becomes an aircraft carrier, converting over to an aircraft carrier. An action like 'the ancient Greek being' who became an echo. in a way of speaking.
Additionally, the Jupiter was named the Langley when the Jupiter became an aircraft carrier. I wonder if that name Langley, is the same name for the CIA headquarters in Washington. The CIA headquarters building: Langley. More research on that one for further elucidation, but no major relevance to this article post.
Score: -6 (8 votes cast)
January 22, 2013 4:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Correct. It can't be tweaked or changed because it is "irreversible" because it is in the Order of Production. (Baudrillard)
DeLillo's novel Cosmopolis addressed this reading through Rand and Baudrillard: The system must itself suicide. Implode. Cronenberg completely missed this in his movie which no one understood because he didn't understand it. http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-07-05T12:23:00-07:00&max-results=7 DeLillo and Ayn Rand, Eric Packer and Francisco D'Anconia
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 12:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree with you re: first and second steps. But I disagree with pretty much everything else you wrote. You seem stuck in the very guilt/self-hatred that you're seemingly already aware of. You seem fixated on how much suffering there is in the world, and how it's all "our" fault. Fact is, there is less suffering at this point in history than there ever has been in the past. "Our" ancestors went through all the same crap, i.e. industrialization, factories, pollution. Look at England, read some Dickens. It was a shitty life for a whole lot of people. And outside of a few civilized areas, even 300 years ago most people lived lives of peasants, death always a blade or a drought away.
At this point, we have largely eliminated hunger. Yes, there are remaining pockets, but for the most part, people around the world are not starving. For probably the first time in the existence of humanity. I could go on, with medicines, technology, etc. and how the life of an average Worlder today (let's take the 50th percentile) is demonstrably on par or better than that of an upper-class person from, say, 800 A.D. in Europe. When sweatshop factories in China close down, the workers riot because they want to keep working there. Because working in those terrible (by our standards) conditions is preferable to the alternative, to the countryside where the workers came from and were making a subsistence living.
And no, we should not stop trading with countries whose leaders treat their people poorly. We are defeating those bastards already. (If I may permit myself to defend the "System" for a bit.) Look at the movements in Egypt, Libya, etc. All those kids are wearing hoodies and Adidas and carrying cellphones alongside their AK's, and they probably watch shit like the Kardashians on TV. They have already bought into our system, whether intentionally or not. It is viral, it has infected them, they cannot escape, the dictators are due for a downfall. China might not be so dramatic (I anticipate a more orderly transition) but it is still coming. I have been there, they eat KFC, watch MTV and wear Ralph Lauren. All of their smartest kids come to the US for college and/or grad school, and then go home to lead their industries while carrying with them a heaping dose of capitalism. I honestly cannot see a war ever happening between China and the West because they simply cannot hate us. They have been exposed to us so much and in so many ways, they might not like us, but they cannot hate us.
I'm not saying that life is great for most people in China or India or Africa, or that we white middle-class Americans are not the extremely lucky beneficiaries of their situation. But their lives are better than they were before. And it's actually BECAUSE of our greed, BECAUSE of the disposable cheap shit that we buy from them.
Moving past that: you seem genuinely disturbed by this thought, and I think the right question to ask you is, who taught you to feel this way, and why did they teach you to feel this way? If I'm mis-reading you, and you just over-emphasized things to make a point, then ok, but it doesn't really seem like that's what you were doing. I think that you honestly feel guilty about your place in the world vis-a-vis others' place in the world, and unless you've done some truly heinous stuff in order to get ahead then you do not deserve to carry that guilt and shame around with you. You cannot either blame or praise people for the simple accident of their birth. It happened, and they had nothing to do with it.
You write dismissively about the "common" (middle-class white American) guilt-bearers for only doing piddly things like buying organic milk to assuage themselves, while you imply that it's people such as yourself (who advocate for stricter/broader-reaching reforms) who are the ones who TRULY care about the poor. You're the one who REALLY knows how to make the world a better place, all those poor deluded suckas are just making themselves feel better in the way that is the least disruptive to their own lives. I humbly suggest that you are carrying the exact same undeserved guilt that they are, and are doing the same exact thing to try to convince yourself that you're paying off your debt to the Universe. Once again, I ask: Who taught you to feel this way? What are their motives in making you feel this way?
Now moving to the main point, about the System being changable and by whom. I see an astounding amount of power moving to average, everyday, even poor people. We have been used to technology for a while now, so we don't perceive things to be all that great for the Third Worlders out there, but the trickle-down theory actually works in technology, and it works remarkably fast. The idea of something like Wikipedia being accessible to villagers, literally villagers in Sub-Saharan Africa, or Indonesia, or Libya... it's a game-changer. No, they don't have state-of-the-art computers, and they don't have very fast pipes, but they can do it. I mean, the very existence of the Nigerian Royalty scam... think about it! Communication is power. Not the only kind of power, but a very important one. Ideas are power, you can find a schematic for a generator or a plow or a windmill or whatever kind of crap you need to improve your life and those around you.
Ok, now look at who created the means of revolution (and the enabling technologies: the things that let people live long-enough lives, comfortable-enough lives, fed-enough lives, connected-enough lives to contemplate revolution). Who invented semiconductors, vaccines, genetic engineering, solar panels, LCD displays, radio frequency communications, lasers, TCP/IP, etc.? Largely people in the 1% (and who were typically born into it) who had the education and leisure time to come up with these things and implement them. And now the benefits of these technologies are exploding across the face of the earth, where they are very likely to be used to overthrow the existing social order in many regions.
But you protest: how is this changing/challenging the System? Isn't it the System's plan to conquer the world via Coca-Cola and Nokia and The Gap and easy money and a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom white picket fence? Yes, of course it is. And what I've described above is merely helping those plans to come to fruition, I can't deny it. However, the pace of change is increasing, disruptive technologies (most of them related to communication) are multiplying, and I can't help but feel that there will come a day when this technology will lead to something that changes the System dramatically.
I believe that if ever something does come along that really disrupts the System, all or most of it will have been invented by the privileged 1% who benefitted most from the System. So "we" may not create the Change itself, but "we" will create the stuff which is necessary for the Change to occur.
Score: 7 (17 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 12:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(Re: Badger's last) You have a persuasive argument.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 1:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
sorry to say that, but I witnessed his mind at work when he was in Maastricht last year and it was half epic fail - pretty much everything I mentioned above plus repetition... I think he makes more sense in his writings :)
I still think he's great observer, but somehow misses the point, context or interconnections or something too often for me to convince me. I sometimes find him misunderstanding realities which are not that difficult to get clear for a person with his background... I assume it's due to (mentioned) "being in love with his own mind" maybe
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 5:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're still talking about a transfer of wealth from the periphery of former colonial states to the wealthiest folks of the first world. Globalism being the rising tide that lifts all boats is neither a new nor entirely accurate insight.
Of course these worker's lives are better than rural subsistence farming, the system necessitates it! Only the threat of hunger keeps things efficient.
You did learn about that time when labor threatened to hang the wealthy from lamp posts and openly fired back at the police ~100 years ago, right? Lesson learned, mischief managed? No, clearly not. Not to the extent you glibly paint over, since conflicts like these occur in China every week. Of course they also riot when they lose their job - and by your own admission it's all they have. More accurately, they're adrift on that tide. They sink or swim at the wealthy's pleasure, like everyone else.
You hear no evil. You will not convince yourself that this has something to do with the economic stagnation occurring in the US, EU and Japan. You probably think we can innovate our way out of the coming oil price shock and climate change. It must not be so bad though, and more people throughout the world eat KFC! Now including the little, irrelevant ones in and of the margins.
I mean, the rising tide will come again for the middle class in the US, right? But maybe that will no longer be a figure of speech, if the latest warming trends accelerate in the Arctic. At least we'll be able to build more oil platforms up there. Drill baby drill.
Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 10:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, there are feminists that are up onto something. Peak Oil will change the landscape of rights and access for sure:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-01-17/why-sex
Now I want Alone to write something about the energy clusterfuck.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 10:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I am somewhat exaggerating, sure, but the reason is that so many who don't think there's a problem, or that merely symbolic changes are sufficient. I think the same is true of a lot of things in our country as well (most notably racism, where we symbolically made blacks equal without actually giving them power to make their own lives better). That's the problem. The problem is that for the people who even recognize that there is a problem, the solutions are much the same -- PRETEND. Pretend that the symbols of helping people are the same as actually helping people. Pretend that the fact that you no longer use the word nigger means that you aren't racist even if you have the stereotype of a nigger in your head when someone says "black guy".
The other part is the the reason that the poor of the world are jumping up and down to be slaves is that they have few other options. And we do actively subvert the attempts that people make to improve conditions. The deal we made with most of these places is "We'll build the factories in your country so long as you keep the slaves in line" If Chinese peasents strike for increase in wages or shorter workdays, they have no protection -- by design. The Chinese government alongside other such governments know that the factories stay so long as they can keep wages low and prevent unions and the benefits unions bring.
It's interesting as well that you think that the fact that Egyptians and Chinese and others are wearing American fashions and watching American TV. Actually, it's the same as Rome. You were acceptable to the Roman Matrix to the degree that they accepted Roman ways. The Gauls ceased to be barbarians when they ditched their trousers for togas, and they got more power as they became more and more Roman. How is it different for us to accept Egypt more because they wear American blue jeans and hoodies than it was for the Romans to accept the Gauls or the Lycians to the degree they looked and acted like Romans? The Matrix does that and the rest of the world has learned its lesson -- look like the Matrix, act like the Matrix, and the Matrix will stop fighting you. Let me ask it this way -- why is it more threatening to see those same Egyptians wearing Egyptian clothing and watching Egyptian movies? Is the treat of that image (as opposed to the better image of them wearing American clothing and watching American TV) so threatening? Either way, it's clothing, it's TV, it's books and music and so on. And for that matter, why is the transfer always one sided -- Egyptians are consuming American culture, we aren't consuming theirs. They learn to eat hamburgers, but do you eat Egyptian food? They learn to wear our clothes, but where is the Egyptian fashions coming here? They watch the Kardashians, what Egyptian TV have you seen? or if you don't like Egypt, how about Indian, or Columbian, or even Russian? It's very one sided, as one side holds all the cards. With the notable exception of Japanese culture (and Japan joined the Matrix when Meiji was forced to open his ports to America) the transfer is one sided by design.
I'm not sure what can be done. My opinion is that the Matrix is too deep, and that's really not an accident. But again, until you can see that, and see that the reason that power is going to remain concentrated within American and Western European powers is that they hold all the cards, nothing can change. Of course the other side of that is exactly that Americans and Western Europeans benefit so greatly from that and we are the only ones with even a little power means that the system will not change. I don't feel guilty about being born in America, but I do think that we need to wake up and take the red pill and at least realize that the stuff we see around us is exactly the reason we have it so good.
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 12:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
um, yeah, that's what men do pretty much all the time. not help others because the aggressor's presence is threatening and then go home and preach about how the world has become so violent lately. but they aren't worth a post because they're special snowflakes or something? unlike college girls, of course. funny how everyone here seems to know everything about those parties as if they'd been there. as if they'd know exactly under what pressure those girls might have stood, even given the assumption that none of them did anything whatsoever. many parents don't even believe their own child has been sexually abused because the power of denial is so strong. there's not really a reason to believe steubenville's police and parents acted responsibly with more and more shady things coming out about the case. but hey, it's all the girls' fault. oh excuse me, of course it is actually feminism's fault.
Score: -1 (25 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 1:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's no blame being laid on rape victims in this post.
He's suggesting that appeals to the "better nature" of rapists and rape culture prove fruitless because the subordination of women to men is about physical, coercive power and the perceptions of the public. You don't ask for freedom; you take it. Hence the suggestion that women build solidarity and a sense of duty to each other. If I'm not mistaken, that's a theme of radical feminism.
Note that a lot of the discussion in the blog revolves around women being afforded the trappings of power, then suddenly coinciding with the power shifting away from an institution in society to another. To be clear: men did cause the shift. So you get the look at women in congress versus the tremendous expansion in influence international business interests now exert over congress compared to the post-WW2 era with Goldman Sachs. Or why college degrees are now useless the second the system allowed women to participate in higher ed, etc. Women are left with the mere appearance of being powerful ("choosing" to wear makeup), while men (particularly white men) still retain their privilege and can even come back and reclaim it when it becomes lucrative to enter a field that was once "women's work" like nursing. Does that make sense?
Score: 16 (20 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 4:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"He's suggesting that appeals to the "better nature" of rapists and rape culture prove fruitless because the subordination of women to men is about physical, coercive power and the perceptions of the public. "
who is suggesting this? You are missing the point just like the insane woman you are replying to.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 10:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The problem with the whatever-wave feminism of today is that it's narcissistic exhibitionism masquerading as sexual empowerment (i.e. Slutwalk, the makeup debates, the hijab question, etc). Meaning, a distraction.
It's true that while it's natural for some people to vie for power (men), it hardly ever occurs to others (women). But being able to envision this is only half the battle. With real power, comes greater responsibility, and who wants more of that? The trappings of power, meanwhile, afford most of the perks with little of the hassle. One of the hardest things for the young, liberal mindset to accept is that the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed is mutual, i.e. that the manipulation goes both ways, which is why "the system" works in the first place.
The classic female professional dilemma outlined earlier—you could use a raise but want them to bring it up—is a deliberate construct. In fact, so are most meaningful female indiscretions like hushing up another woman's abuse or being willfully ignorant your own fiscal irresponsibility. (You know) they'll never ask so you never have to face up and be brave. It's like sitting around waiting for the guy to call.
Score: 7 (13 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 11:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"You hear no evil. You will not convince yourself that this has something to do with the economic stagnation occurring in the US, EU and Japan. You probably think we can innovate our way out of the coming oil price shock and climate change. It must not be so bad though, and more people throughout the world eat KFC! Now including the little, irrelevant ones in and of the margins."
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you bask like a lizard in the self-hatred that you emanate when you write things like this? I ask you the same question I asked Dovahkiin: Who taught you to feel this way, and why did they do so?
I don't deny it! I've got a lot better life than the average person in India or China. But I've also got a better life than any of my ancestors, and most people in India and China have better lives than any of their ancestors. And yes, there is a seeming likelihood that things are headed downhill, for almost everybody (including myself) in the near future. I'm doing what I can to position myself defensively if such a thing should happen, but it's not my primary focus in life.
Focusing on the negatives (and blaming "us" for it) is a way of keeping yourself down, it ensures that you are never able to fully enjoy your life because you feel deep down that you don't deserve it.
You're tilting at windmills here. You have been taught (properly) to fight against injustice. If you see someone being raped, do what you can to stop it, even at the risk of some danger to yourself. But we have taken that to an extreme, there is always another injustice around the corner, another bugaboo to rail against. Injustice against women, against minorities, against the poor, against animals, against abstract things like "The Planet". All of this is happening, it has always happened, it will always happen. It is not worth getting yourself worked up about, since you cannot do anything to stop it.
That doesn't mean that you should stop trying entirely (after all, you can move a mountain one shovel-full at a time, etc.) but you should stop tying your self-identity into your fight against every imaginable injustice. Because the amount of injustice in this world is insurmountable, and you're only on the track to depression (if you're not already there) if you try to stop ALL of it or think that you are somehow obligated to attempt to do so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSvFixnYNbY
Not only does it make you depressed, it gives you a smug sense of self-righteousness over all the lesser people who do not see the world as you do and who do not make the same efforts towards fixing it. So in the depths of despair about how horrible we/you are, you get the satisfaction of at least knowing that you're better than everybody else. A lovely cocktail.
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
January 23, 2013 11:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So I think I'm hearing that you're really just upset about how stupid everybody is? Which, yes, of course they're stupid, and of course you can do your part to educate, but in the final analysis, being angry about people being stupid/disinterested/self-absorbed/etc. is like being angry that you can't reach out and pluck the sun out of the sky. The only guaranteed outcome is that you will become full of rage, frustration and bitterness. Tilting at windmills.
"The other part is the the reason that the poor of the world are jumping up and down to be slaves is that they have few other options."
In the final analysis, we are all slaves to our flesh. We all must provide our bodies sustenance, or we will die. In certain times and places, this is easier than in others. In modern America, it is pretty easy. In the pre-agricultural world, it consumed the majority of one's time. But when we moved up from the subsistence level, we merely traded a lower slavery for a higher slavery. Even most middle-class white Americans (the 0.1%, you said) are tied to their jobs, they can't afford to quit, they "have few other options". There are VERY few who are truly free from economic slavery, and even those of us who are pretty high up the ladder are still stuck where we are.
Regarding Egyptians adopting our clothing, entertainment, etc.: Are you really asking those questions? It seems that you know the answers already, but you just don't like them. I don't think that I can really add anything here. I'm certainly not going to contradict you, you're exactly right, but you seem to think there's something wrong with it. Of course it's how the Borg is absorbing them from the inside out. And they're going right along with it, willingly. There's nothing you can do about it. Why lament it?
I certainly advocate greater awareness (both self- and other-) among all humans, and promote it where I can. In the end, I think that's the only thing I can really do. The prevailing System is really not all that bad. "For people like you!", you object, and I acknowledge that, but it's increasingly good for a lot of other people who aren't like me as well, and I'm not aware of another System which would be any better.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
January 24, 2013 3:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Just a small reminder that "Django" is not remotely historically accurate, which makes the bad analogy slavery - patriarchy in this article even worse:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/how-accurate-is-quentin-tarantinos-portrayal-of-slavery-in-django-unchained.html
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
January 24, 2013 7:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jerk you replied to here, the points you made about "Malthusian guilt" (that's what I'll call it okay) thing are spot on and quite insightful. That type of guilt isn't productive. Shit, I know didn't build the damn thing. No one in particular did - which is the whole problem. I look down not people unaware of these things, but I will look down at its apologists.
"The Planet" is becoming less and less abstract every day good sir. Keep up with the weather. The oil thing is also eventual, there's only so many times we can kick that can.
I object to the idea that we should look at the spread of global consumerism as a way to "beat the bastards" who run countries that do not enjoy the same "freedoms" of the first world. Note that these same bastards are often good friends with the bastards that run the West. No need to sugarcoat what's actually going on.
More broadly even: consumerism isn't going to defeat any bastards at all. Quite the opposite. Rather it makes us bastards, selfish, self-hating, paranoid bastards driven only by a desire for desire. And yes, "Malthusian guilt" is part of that. We both read this blog.
You suggest technology (in particular communication) will dig humanity out of this, bring us together etc. A silver lining to be sure, and not one to underestimate. Yet you also cannot downplay the fact that the methods of social control, ones already refined in the 20th century, have only grown insidious and intrusive as a result of the same technology. These roughly entail marketing, propaganda and surveillance. The amount of coercive power the state (an institution representing the interests of a class that we might've called Capital 100 years ago, but maybe necessitates more nuance now) has available to it has only expanded as well.
Perhaps this seems like a tired exercise in belaboring the obvious for the sake of lame moral posturing, or a sad sack liberal finding the glass perpetually half empty. I've entertained those thoughts myself and in some respects you are correct, but I will always be suspicious of people who come off as if they are carrying water for the "Matrix" while appearing to see through it. Don't be Apoc.
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
January 24, 2013 9:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I suppose I'm being unclear with my egyptian comment. The point isn't that Egyptians like hoodies and it's tragic. I don't know why Egyptians like hoodies. My point is the psychological reaction you have to Egyptians liking Western things (clothes, entertainment, food, whatever). The reaction was basically "see, things are getting better, the Egyptians are turning into little Americans". My point is that there was nothing wrong with Egyptians being Egyptians. There's nothing immoral about traditional Egyptian culture -- it's simply a culture, and unless Egyptian entertainment is nothing but torturing and killing people for fun, there's nothing wrong with Egyptian culture. The reverse, in my opinion, is on some level bigotted. If a person's acceptability is based only on their acceptance of White Ways (yes it's not only white, American culture is kind of a mixed bag), then it's not much different than what the people of the "bad old days" would have said. In Rome, as I said, you were a Barbarian until you started acting like Romans. In the British Empire, the more you acted like a Briton, the more acceptable you were. It's nothing more or less than the same old imperialism, and we still don't see it. We still don't accept other cultures having a right to be different. We'll take Egyptians so long as they act like Americans, think like Americans, and watch TV like Americans, but if they decide they want to be Egyptians, well, that's bad.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
January 24, 2013 6:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
@Alone: How do you write with such emotion but still come off as even-handed?
I know if I was to write like that, I'd end up with a ridiculously biased piece that even I wouldn't agree with a day later.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 24, 2013 10:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My best guess so far is Anand Pandya
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 25, 2013 9:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you bask like a lizard in the self-hatred that you emanate when you write things like this? I ask you the same question I asked Dovahkiin: Who taught you to feel this way, and why did they do so?
I don't deny it! I've got a lot better life than the average person in India or China. But I've also got a better life than any of my ancestors, and most people in India and China have better lives than any of their ancestors. And yes, there is a seeming likelihood that things are headed downhill, for almost everybody (including myself) in the near future. I'm doing what I can to position myself defensively if such a thing should happen, but it's not my primary focus in life.
Focusing on the negatives (and blaming "us" for it) is a way of keeping yourself down, it ensures that you are never able to fully enjoy your life because you feel deep down that you don't deserve it.
I think you're somewhat right in that none of us specifically caused anything, but I think that's also beside the point. The slaveowners never caused slavery either, would you say that they shouldn't have felt so bad that they're benefitting from slave labor? Would you tell good Germans not to feel bad that they're gaining from a jobs program that created an entire "Kill people we don't like" industry. Guilt isn't the point per se -- I don't feel guilty about living where I live or having what I have. What I think is unforgivable is that we can't even be honest with ourselves about our privileges (in the case of our discussion about globalism, American Privilege). If you can't admit that we are the "evil slave-owner" then we can't even take the steps that the actual slave-owners took and argue about whether or not its a good thing or a bad thing. We can't justify ending something that we just can't admit to ourselves is happening. Is that guilt? Maybe, maybe not, but it's a bit better than the usual "it's not so bad, if whitey hadn't plucked 'em from the trees, they'd still be eating dirt" type of response.
And who "deserves" anything? Not as a put down to myself or anyone else, but as an actual question? What did you do to deserve to be born in America, what did you do to deserve the privileges of your parent's money? What did you do to deserve a first world education? What did you do to deserve the first job you ever got? Seriously, I think the idea that we deserve any of the things that came to us as a result of choosing to be born to certain parents who had advantages in the world is suspect. We like to tell ourselves we earned that stuff, but had you been born in Mumbai or Nairobi you probably would be living quite a different life right now. Same person, same talent, but because of your birth into a different part of the Matrix, your horizons broaden or shrink.
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
January 25, 2013 1:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I was recommended the blog from vox day's comment thread about women being cleared to join men on the front lines. Tom Ball immolated himself and his manifesto lined out how the government has been waging a war on men, and instead we get an election campagin about a war being waged on women. Which apparently is good, because finally women have the privilege to get war hero medals and advance their careers just like the menz.
voxday.blogspot.in/2013/01/women-to-front-lines.html
"power had shifted away from government in the late 1980's or so"
spending money is of course evidence of no power, just like in households, it's the wage-gap where the real power lies. Just ask the japanese men who hand over their paychecks to their wives, they revel in their manly power!
and before that government had real power, drafting men to fight in wars and forcing women to give them white feathers, power power power!!
'I had an extremely talented friend who said there was no point in being a female composer, because you're always a woman first. "
and thus she could gain more fame than a man of similar calibre and often much higher? Like Marie Curie?
"Or why college degrees are now useless the second the system allowed women to participate in higher ed"
LOL, women have been majority on college campuses since 1981, it doesn't help that they are majoring in stupid studies or that education has to be watered down so that everyone gets As and SATs are sexist because men score higher. It's men who are earning less than their fathers, not women worse off than their mothers.
"Our society is constantly pointing to "the old boy's club""
don't forget the young boys' club of video gamers.
"If the men-of-power on wall street are the epitome of man culture then software devs are the anti-man culture. "
oh no, you got it all wrong, the unbearable machoness of the IT nerds is what's keeping out the wimminz
The funniest thing being the talk of matrix, as if the folks talking about it even realize what really the red pill is.
http://endofwomen.blogspot.in/2012/10/male-dominated-history-and-definition.html
PS - "We like to tell ourselves we earned that stuff, but had you been born in Mumbai or Nairobi you probably would be living quite a different life right now. Same person, same talent"
jeez, what a moron.
"not an equal partner, this is 1850 or so"
Legal Subjection of Men, matrimonial privileges of women
Score: 1 (21 votes cast)
January 25, 2013 2:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is no "power" anymore. As Baudrillard and Nietzsche before him said, "Something can only be truly understood after it no longer exists." And Baudrillard writes the question, "Has Foucault written so perfectly about power because it is finished?" And that is his beginning of his book Forget Foucault.
Since power is everywhere in the interstices of the Matrix, which is the Foucauldian Grid, The Foucauldian Mesh, it is nowhere. Just as Herzog on evil in the jungle, "Evil is everywhere." http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2012/09/herzog-jungle-is-obscene-rob-pattinsons.html When it is everywhere then it becomes OBSCENE and obscene is not to be read and defined as a moral condemnation. Just aas the word "fuck" is everywhere: a verb, a noun, an adjective, an adverb, the word fuck is OBSCENE. Sex is now OBSCENE because it is everywhere except in sex as Baudrillard says. Since power is everywhere, power is OBSCENE. It is nowhere and everywhere. Obama black or white, woman or man does not matter as president because the president and govt has no power. go to your local court on a visit. Watch the judge come in, the court crier, the prosecutor, the audience all stand up including yourself. You know you are just standing because it is a ritual empty of meaning but you are doing it anyway just like a robot or zombie. You yourself know that here is no power, no prestige, nothing. It is all a SIMULACRUM in a piece of SIMULATED REALITY. When this SIMULATED REALITY is total we will be in VIRTUAL REALITY from which there is no escape. Don't believe me? Go into HARD CORE GAMING for awhile. You will see. You are killed and you come back with another identity. Nothing is black and white, good or bad, true or false, up or down, in fact there are no opposites at all. The classical Hegelian Dialectical Dominating Discourse is over.
You see this in the Hunger Games. This doesn't mean that "people don't retch and die in the streets" as Don DeLillo says in his Cosmopolis.
Score: -7 (9 votes cast)
January 25, 2013 3:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see you jumped off my Gaming note to you. IT and Gamers are in different categories. An IT person is one with certification that allows her/him to earn a significant amount of money, although many are being laid off as Indians are as good, better and much cheaper.
Gamers are outsiders: artists, nerds, hackers etc. Anomymous is full of hard core hackers.
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
January 25, 2013 4:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Reading the comments put forth I remember the refreshingly honest straightforwardness and candor of the Mitford sisters, cited in Wikipedia as "Diana the Fascist, Jessica the Communist, Unity the Hitler-lover; Nancy the Novelist; Deborah the Duchess and Pamela the unobtrusive poultry connoisseur." As children, the girls would take books supporting their various points of view and rather than posturing ideological debate they would simply battle, throwing the books at each other the way other children might throw rocks.
As they aged and became more entrenched in their various habits they grew more vocal ideologically and less physical, and more dangerous.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 26, 2013 6:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
First off, in 1850 (the era of Django, which is the movie we're discussing), women didn't have any official power. Women generally were not allowed to have jobs after marriage, they couldn't vote, and would have a hard time getting a divorce. Officially and culturally women existed solely to get married to a man and have children that she would then raise. What women, or at least white women, had in that era was access to her husband. If he was well off, she could live a fiarly comfortable existence, if he was a powerful man, she could share power by convincing him to do what she wanted him to do, things like that. So I'd agree that the idea that women had no power is wrong -- she had derived power, which is to say that if she could marry into wealth and power, she could convince the man to do what she wanted and thus indirectly wield power.
And how is it wrong to say that a person's power and potential is not partially a result of accidents of your birth? If Hillary Clinton had been born in Saudi Arabia, she wouldn't be allowed outside the house, she couldn't drive, and she certainly wouldn't have been allowed to become the Secretary of State. If Obama had been born in 1910, he'd have likely been a plumber, as blacks were in general relegated to -- at best -- skilled trades. If any one of us had been born in Afghanistan, we wouldn't know what a computer is, in fact, most homes in Afghanistan don't have electricity, so no matter how smart you are, if you live in Afghanistan, you probably aren't going to have a hi-tech startup in your barn. Which as I said, means that accidents of birth to a fair degree influence your future lifestyle. If you're born into a hi-tech society, you can do a lot with the benefits of that society, if you're born into a place that doesn't, you can't. If you're born into a place that welcomes your kind (whatever that may be) you'll do a lot better than you would have had you been born in a place that hates your kind.
And there is very much so real power. It's just not what you think it is. Sure the standing in court thing is not real power, but what about a boss who can fire you, or a police officer who can arrest you, or a media empire that can control what you see and hear? Power is all over the place, and it's simple enough to figure out who has it and who doesn't. Think about your boss, probably a decent enough guy, but here's how you know he has real power over you -- you pay attention to what he wants, you re-arrange your priorities around his ideas, you defer your opinions on areas under his power to him. So if your boss decides that your first priority is to figure out how to cut costs by 10%, then that's your priority. If the same guy comes in on friday and says "no on second thought, maybe we should raise sales first" then you do that instead. When he sets a deadline, you meet it. That's power. On the other hand, symbolic power is something that you get with titles, for example being knighted (in England), or being appointed to some titled job. Nobody cares, as you don't actually have the ability to get people to do what's on your agenda. You can't change anything. You can't tell people what you want and have them do it -- what are you going to do if they don't? Goldman Sachs has power for that reason -- if you don't toe their line, you don't get the money.
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
January 26, 2013 6:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
On the one hand, I think you've reached the root of the problem. Self-respect.
Like the women who wear makeup, the girls who stood around watching the other girl get raped weren't thinking about self-respect. Or even whether other people respected them. What was more important to them is that other people LIKED them - and this means a positive reaction.
No-one gets up and says 'hands off her, douch-bag, I'm calling the cops' because then douch-bag and his 20 mates don't like her anymore. Doesn't matter whether or not they RESPECT her, its that they don't like her.
But the girls then miss the point that the rape gets covered up not because people like the boys, but because they (misguidedly) respect them.
On the other hand, you epically fail to show even the smallest respect the women who actually deserve it - those who HAVE gotten their shit together, and have gotten past the (genetic? indoctrinated? whichever) need to be liked. For fuck sake, the fact that these women have become Senators doesn't mean that all the men have moved on and made way for them. There are plenty of men who still want to be Senators, they just AREN'T AS GOOD as these women are.
So, until you are a Senator yourself, I think you should show some fucking respect for your betters. Women or otherwise.
Score: -7 (15 votes cast)
January 26, 2013 6:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Who said you were "wrong"? What a word to use.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
January 26, 2013 6:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The women who watched is so far out of my experience that I can't even think about it. They are barbarians, that's all. It reminds me of a long ago movie I saw from Eastern Europe in black and white. It's dystopian. A group of women are wandering in a landscape where there are no other people and an older woman is leading them. They are young, strong girls and it becomes clear that she is searching for a man so the race can go on. They find one but he is old like the woman and she finally has someone to talk with. The movie is called August at the Hotel Ozone. It is incredible. But these girls who watched the rape are very like those girls in that film. Darwin in reverse.
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
January 26, 2013 9:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
As a gay-but-masculine man, I wish to GOD that men wore makeup. Honestly, it makes sense: everyone looks so much better in make up! If I was a straight man, I wouldn't even look at women without makeup. Hell, I wear makeup in my own house and I've worn it to the local queer bar. There is something magical about being a handsome man wearing the smoky eye and perfect, pore-covering concealer. And I find other men that wear makeup soooo sexy - it's like making love to a girl that's a man trying to look like a girl. Mmmmm!
Score: -4 (22 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 1:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't think anyone is an adult until they have wrestled with the issue of having to sacrifice something for their ideals. Or of experiencing first hand how difficult this can be in reality, once one is operating as a figure with their own assumed power in a world where others might not see it or acknowlege it. I'm referring to the girls who were present when another girl got assaulted, but also to even more complex issues that occur when yo are a thinking feeling person in the adult world.
Is any discussion about power complete without addressing the issue of personal power, power within, or of speaking truth to power?
Or of viewing power in a more complex way- as something that one can simply assume, although it may come with some costs.
It's a little too easy to speak of power as something a few at the top have and forget that for the privileges they gain they must surely sacrifice some things as well, just like we all do.
it reminds me of something katherine hepburn said in the movie Adam's Rib. Someone said "I don't make the rules," and she replied, "Sure you do. We all do."
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 1:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
No self respecting person would read this blog and find it anything other than painfully self-indulgent, fearfully sexist and full of gaps in logic so large you could drive a tank through them. I stumbled across this via that Cracked article everyone just loved so much, and I was actually hopeful. But jesus christ. I can only hope no woman was self-loathing enough to procreate with you! Then again, if you were truly once a psychiatrist (a terrifying, terrifying thought), I'm sure you were able to find someone. I am so sorry for anyone unfortunate enough to have ever been a patient of yours. Although as others have mentioned, despite having known more than one narcissistic psychiatrist, I don't buy it. This is another level of crazy and hate-filled.
The fact that more than a handful of people could be fooled by this drivel is, of course, not surprising. Just having an IQ above 130 these days is enough to lose any remaining ability to be shocked by the stupidity of others. Especially sad white men in America. Especially on the internet. The only thing I find really disheartening is what it says about our society that this many people feel so inferior and so threatened. Take my advice - make your way to a (legitimate) mental health provider.
Score: -22 (30 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 4:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
After reading this comment, I'd like to know more on the subject of personal power. any recommendations?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 6:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If we're beyond help, why post this sanctimonious rant in the first place?
It's telling that all the people laying accusations of "victim blaming" and sexism on the blog post are not citing any specific examples in the article of where it occurs. I don't expect these to be qualified in the future but it demonstrates just how deeply laden with self-defeating narcissism identity politics has become.
Is a Gawker site like Jezebel or an infotainment site like Huffington Post really that near and dear to anyone's heart to get bent out of shape over when it's criticized? These are sites out to make money. They do this through ad revenue and in Huffpo's case "promoted content" and not paying some of their writing staff. They're businesses, and ones that aren't all that interested in a good faith, high minded debate. They're there to entertain and manipulate you into outrage.
Is it such a repugnant thought that some of the people you may agree with politically aren't all that bright? Or more cynically, that they are more interested in generating traffic (yes, the almighty $) to their website by fomenting shallow controversies about TV shows and the latest retarded thing posted on Reddit?
Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 7:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhyhzlL-hh8
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 8:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
After spending the last year or two wandering around the kind of blogs that endlessly link to Jezebel and whine endlessly about 'privilege' and how they're just too, too 'oppressed', reading this came as such a refreshing change that I was practically cheering by the end. I'm even more impressed that you had the sense not to blame it on 'feminism' but rather on the bastardized garbage that passes for feminism among that set who are intellectually lazy, superficially educated and like to think of themselves as 'progressive' - but who never actually DO anything. Kudos.
Score: 14 (16 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 10:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well I certainly lost all respect for myself after reading your post. Fuck off, you are just a moron, and I would definitely beat the shit out of you if we ever met in real life
Score: -7 (11 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 10:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think the system cares about removing power from women to give it to men, stop with this shit, all of you are just trying to make your mainstream views fit with alone's controversial views, my personal idea is that the system doesn't give a shit about giving power to men over women, it oppress them both equally with different systems, yet men still seem to have a little bit of a edge, and women are oppressed by other women and not the men in their life
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 10:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well I think the mainstream and the classical feminism is garbage and shit- a new kind of feminism has to be invented.
So yeah the real feminists are the one who do not make any sense and are stupid and crazy, fake feminists are needed for actual progress. Let's not confuse the real feminism with anything that makes sense or is not stupid as shit please
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 12:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Shamsi Ruhe's comments are pure Bogus Feminist Gold and should be sold at $0.25/word to average consumers of Feminist Claptrap.
You sure got your Political Correctness Achievement Badge, Shamsi. But you'd have got it without saying a thing, thanks to your very exotic handle, which surprasses substantive wisdom every time.
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 12:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
First off, in 1850 (the era of Django, which is the movie we're discussing), women didn't have any official power.
What a bunch of revisionist nonsense.
What you SHOULD have said was, "they didn't have any type of power that I'm willing to accept, because that would undercut the cheap-ass rhetorical tricks I'm using."
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 12:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
By the way, it's sweet-as-honey that "Alone" also posts as Dragonborn. Alone plays Skyrim? Gosh, what a stunning revelation!
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 2:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You make some good points; certainly, everything is not roses and champagne in the world. And I understand your suspicion of System-supporters. I'm certainly a product of the System, and while I'm familiar with my share of conspiracy theories, I'm not sure that I really pierce the veil very well. I am susceptible to manipulation, but I always try to perceive it and resist it. And I try to perceive it in others as well, and help them resist when I can. I think that's about the best that I can hope for. As I said in my original comment, all that we can really try to do is become more aware, and more self-aware; and try to do things that are not for or against the system explicitly, but simply orthogonal. Any change that results from larger numbers of people doing this, will be inherently unpredictable.
I like your term "Malthusian guilt", it makes good sense.
@Dovahkiin (Jan. 24th comment -- sorry, I am behind, but I started writing this comment several days ago): I am certainly no fan of the cultural, social, economic and genetic homogenization of humanity. However, it appears to be happening, and it appears that there's not much that I can do to stop it. I certainly wish that we could preserve every language, every culture, every style of dress and speech and food and whatnot. I love to travel, and I love learning languages. I feel very sad when I ponder that many of the world's languages (and the cultures that created them) will likely disappear within the next few generations.
However, it is a natural result of enhanced communication, and to explicitly try to preserve cultures/languages/etc. is basically to put groups of people into a reservation, to be observed and not to be interfered with. And while this is a noble thought in some ways, it effectively cuts off those groups from having any future among the rest of humanity.... they're merely animals in a zoo. (I dislike zoos quite a bit, I feel sorry for almost all of the animals there.) This is explained very poignantly by the Pequeninos in Orson Scott Card's books Xenocide and Children of the Mind.
It's the noble savage thing all over again, we put their culture over ours because it's more "authentic" or whatever, but when it comes to actual people making actual decisions about what culture they want to adopt, they choose ours. (And if you want to preserve their culture so much, then you should make the choice to go and live there and give up your own culture. Why haven't you done so?) So that must mean that ours is "better" in some sense, definitely not better in every way but maybe (taking it to the extreme negative side, just for the sake of argument) better at appealing to the base desires? I don't know but it must be "better" in some way, because people seem to choose it. (And I realize that that "choice" may be ill-informed, manipulated, or even coerced... but it's happened enough times, with large enough numbers, that it's hard to discount it completely.) But in the end, who are you to make that decision for other people? Who are you to tell people that they must keep dressing this way, eating this food, speaking this language -- if they want to do otherwise? It's just arrogance, saying that you can pick and choose their cultural behavior better than they can themselves.
It's a bizarre form of conservatism; it's funny that what separates liberals from conservatives is exactly what they want to conserve. The human lifespan is short, but it is long enough to see major changes in one lifetime, and we all tend to want to stop the world at sometime between the date of our birth and our early 20's. That's when our minds are formed, and that's when our conceptions of the world are formed, and if the world changes from that conception then we tend not to like it.
Example on a large scale: It does seem that climate change is occurring, but whether it's caused by humans or not is still very much up for debate IMO, and I think the idea that we could really change it much is its own form of arrogance. There are huge external factors like the sun, a 0.1% variance in the heat output of the sun could change things way beyond what we've seen within the past 100 years, which just happened to be the time that we had proper instruments and records, and we developed a science capable of tracking these things, and we apparently decided that the Earth's overall temperature had to be roughly the same as it was in the first half of the 20th century, forever; anything different would be "climate change" despite the fact that there have been proven major swings in the climate, both during human history and prior to it, which far outrank what we've seen in the past 100 years, and which obviously had no industrial-scale human inputs whatsoever.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 3:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My point isn't whether you deserve it. My point is simply that you have it, as a result of accident, but you carry this guilt telling you that you do NOT deserve it (which I am using here not as a simple negation of deserving it, but something stronger -- like it is an evil that you have it) which keeps you down on yourself, because you are constantly telling yourself that it came at the expense of others, and that prevents you from enjoying it. And what a waste that is, to have something marvelous and not to make full use of it!
"What I think is unforgivable is that we can't even be honest with ourselves about our privileges (in the case of our discussion about globalism, American Privilege)"
So what's unforgivable about being dumb? And again, you use the first-person plural ("ourselves", "our privileges") but you seem to think that YOU personally are being honest with YOURself, so you're using the first-person plural to mean everybody in your culture, EXCEPT you? Which is a pretty condescending way of speaking. So are you really angry with yourself, or with others? And again, how is it worth your while to be angry at others -- others over whom you have no power?
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 3:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I came here from Dave Wong's article on Cracked. I've only read 'Hipsters on Food Stamps' and this article.
Because of the author's confrontational style, I have a hard time telling if his contempt is directed at women, or at the society that raised them. I suspect he tries to contain himself to the latter, but that in practice he has a hard time avoiding the former. Similar to his treatment of the food stamp hipsters in the previous articles: acknowledging that they made their decisions based on the comforting lies of people they trusted, then raging at them the next.
I am a professional software developer who does not wear makeup. For two reasons: first, because my self-concept is mostly centered around what I can accomplish with my mind, not what I look like; and second, because I could never betray my mother that way. She and her generation of feminists took up the challenge, and I'm going to claw it forward as far as I can.
When people make grand sweeping statements about "women" as a monolithic entity, all I hear is "I like to make unsubstantiated claims about roughly half of humanity based on my own limited experience with the kind of people I surround myself with, plus what I see on sitcoms!" Like how my friend who picks up women at bars complains about how shallow girls are.
tl;dr Your pop psychology is bad and you should feel bad.
Score: 5 (27 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 4:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Make-up is a mask. The Japanese Geisha's have taught us that. When you wish to wear a mask, then put on make-up by all means. To wear it all the time means that you have to wash it off at night, look in the mirror and ask, "Who's that?" Why I have never colored my hair.
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 4:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is really because you don't understand the Foucauldian Grid, mesh, Matrix, whatever you want to name it. It's far more than that label and only by steeping yourself in Foucault, and I don't mean those writing on Foucault, are you ever going to truly understand it.
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 4:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I saw Satchel Paige pitch in 1953. In Cleveland. I was thrilled.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 4:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's already been invented. Malabou; Masha Tupitsyn; more but those two come to mind first. A fictional character is Liz Salander.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 4:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are really saying that the writer nows nothing about power because there is no indication in anything written on this post or others, that the writer has a thorough understanding of Foucault. Try Power/Knowledge to begin with.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 4:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you don't understand then start reading Foucault as he spent his life explaining it to you in the most beautiful prose. He wrote not for academics but for everyone who could read. The Order of Things came out in the summer and was the book to read on the beach. Along with Lacan's I forget which one. But then that's France.
Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 4:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Read Foucault's last book as he was working on this when he died of AIDS. Fearless Speech.
Foucault was very much about resistance and its importance. BUT efficient resistance. "Wherever there is power, there is resistance." The two are in a meld. You apply resistance at the point, usually locally for you, that will do the most damage. I fought Seymour MO for 5 years in court over the mayor cutting my garden down because red clover in it exceeded the ordinance of 12 inches and because it was a "WEED"!I really wanted to see if it could be done. It can. Gene Zimmerman spend the last years of his life going around the US and teaching 2 week workshops on guerrilla law.It is efficient and effective. He said, "If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong."
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 5:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
abbeysbooks, please stop posting
Score: 10 (16 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 9:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Liberation movements lose their way when they become self-esteem movements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwsrFSOvR84
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 9:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, but "studies show" you'd make more money if you wore makeup, right? And money=power, so by sticking to your created, non-makeup-wearing self-image you're actually denying yourself power.
(I see your point, but I've been trained to think that most of my power comes from my appearance. This is one of those things that is so ingrained that you'll get women who identify as feminist telling other women it's OK to be fat and that they can wear whatever they want out, then shilling for slimming products and "Five Sluttiest Looking Celebrity" lists on the same page because no, it's not really OK.
There is no "red pill" for this, just Alli.)
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 9:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not really. It's kind of self evident. Everybody makes choices about what they are willing to give up to get whatever. Rich, poor, it doesn't matter. Everybody has something to give and of course everybody has things they want. Everybody is equal that way.
I will say however that as often as certain types of people like to talk about choice as if it is a profound or good thing, one of the darkest realities I can think of is teh idea that all one might have is one's right to make choices and live with the consequences.
I suppose one might look at power and control and consider the implications that some people have more of an orientation towards interior things, the self's own inner world, and some people are more oriented toward exterior things, money, corner offices, whatever. I'm not, however, saying that is not ultimately a false dichotomy. When you look at extreme inward people and extreme outward people, there might be some pathology that goes with each....
I was responding to the assertion, somewhere in teh comments, that people in politics have power, and people with titles do not, which is a gross oversimplification. the things one gives up for a career in politics, come to think of it, might be the very things that seem to foster, at some point, acting out against that life's appearances of propriety or acting out against the self sacrifice necessary to achieve such prominence... of course I am referring to scandals that happen so frequently to certain kinds of people.
It is obvious, and this is the sort of thing I would expect to read in Alone's comment section, that when one is dealing with a person who has mainly or only an orientation toward material success, they can be quite a dangerous person, and probably easily coerced. Spirited people can be harder to fight simply because they are responding to their own internal values and resources and probably satisfying some ethical and moral concerns... Other people might merely be looking to save their skins... this is kind of ironic in a way, since spiritual sustenance is pretty much free for the taking if you know how, unlike so many toher things.
i apologize if my phrasing is awkward; I'm not feeling well today.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
January 27, 2013 9:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Studies also show that people expect more from beautiful people, i believe. there is a new book out that discusses why it sucks to be beautiful. people expect more from you, people resent the power that one who is beautiful is thought to have. Women do not want to be your friend and all guys want to fuck you. It's kind of a drag. It tends to bring out other people's intense projections onto you because if you are beautiful you elicit straong reactions. You end up with stalkers and weirdos... it's not what people think it is.
Consider all the awful things beautiful people wind up doing and it is easy to see how it might be a drag. I mean, if it's so great, why are there so many beautiful people who have to pose for Playboy or try to marry well or make zillions of public appearances... imagine having to look your best all the time. We all tend to internalize whatever others value in us; that means some people feel honestly pressured to be gorgeous, all the time. that sucks.
All of the attention is in itself a drag, and if you are really beautiful, even if you are a nobody, people pay extra attention.
and sometimes at work, bosses are afraid to promote you... they don't want to seem to favor you, especially if they really do want to fuck you.
It's kind of like, imagine being trapped in someone else's psychodrama, only with no end in sight...
There is also some truth to the idea you have better sex if you're not so gorgeous. You can relax, he can relax, nobody is trying to impress anybody excesively...or maintain some kind of defensive image...
Score: 6 (12 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 4:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are very stupid and annoying and with reading comprehension problems, also over sensitive. Please don't comment again
Score: -4 (10 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 4:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"there is a new book out that discusses why it sucks to be beautiful. people expect more from you, people resent the power that one who is beautiful is thought to have. "
how are these negatives? People keeping you in a higher regard than normal people and being jealous of you?
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 4:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Consider how shamanic feminism might be different from that of the West:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD6UyFMAdpk
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 9:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, but makeup doesn't have to do with beauty. Every woman is supposed to wear it, no matter what she looks like. fgsfds could be Helen of Troy or a bigger dog than Clifford, she's still supposed to wear makeup because it's "part of being a woman." She can complain about it, but actually not wearing it? Weird, and requires an explanation. Hell, I think she's screwing herself over by not wearing makeup, and I know "her" from an anonymous post on a website. That's how deep the training goes.
I shared this article with some friends, and the ones who cared enough to give it a read and comment were uniformly offended--and the part that offended them was the idea that they would wear makeup to attract sexual attention. I didn't find it offensive, but it was interesting that it got such a strong "this is attacking me and all women" reaction.
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 11:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As a woman, I have to say... the greatest thing my dad ever taught me was not to give a fuck. As long as it's not screwing anybody else over, if there's something you want and it's within your capacity to take it, go for it. But get it through honest hard work and ability.
And in agreement with what someone said above: "What kind of witch just ditches her friends?"
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 1:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Shaking my head after reading the first few paragraphs. Is this all the news that people can talk about these days? There happens to be a lot going on in the world today but I am surprised that this one required people's attention and opinion. Well, I do hope people come back to reality now.
Score: -8 (10 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 6:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
tons of women in healthcare choose to go without makeup, nurses and nursing assistant, respiratory staff... I don't actually think it is always that big of a deal. and actually yeah, wearing makeup probably is perceived to be more of a grooming thing than an actualy beauty thing. Makeup is good for attracting guys--- or rather, getting them to approach you--- because you will be perceived as someone who is open to attracting attention, the same way you will seem open to attracting attention if you smile or look happy. It is largely true guys won't necessarily see you as more beautiful in makeup.
Seems pretty silly to me that someone can't see why it might be a problem to expect a woman to produce more than others to get the same rewards because she is beautiful. i mean, it's the same as expecting someone to prove themselves more if they are black or old or female or anything else. Hello. And having people jealous, envious, and threatened by you because you get the guys... i think teh average person could see why this might be uncomfortable. I didn't notice any explanation by the writer as to why this wouldn't be not only not a problem, but "a good thing."
While you're at it, why not say it's great to atract tons of atention and stalkers and weirdos, who feel so moved by you that they ascribe an inordinate of power and magical similarity between yourself and them, even when they don't know you. "Oh, he likes you!" Indeed.
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 7:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Women couldn't vote or hold a job after marriage, it's a fact. Try google. We're talking about 1850, and that's how it was -- the only job a married woman was allowed to hold after marriage was teaching. That's no official power. However, and you seem to want to blow right by that point, is that they actually had plenty of power. I said that, and you're ignoring the part that makes me say something that you don't want to hear -- namely, that women never needed a movement, they still don't because unlike blacks, native americans, or any other ethnic group, they never needed a real "rights movement" -- they had power already, as they could literally marry into it. Gone with the Wind is a fair demonstration of the power of said women. Scarlett O'Hara had a lot of power, more than most shop-keepers, certainly more than her slaves, and probably better than the average factory worker in a Yankee factory. Why? She was born into a patrician family with a lot of wealth and power, and thus she had the option to marry into another patrician family. As such families could command a lot of respect in political circles and social circles, all she would have had to do was convince either her father (before marriage) or her husband (after marriage) to do as she thought should happen. That's a lot of power.
Now as to the comment that I shouldn't feel so bad about having, well, how should I feel? The accident of birth is not something to be proud of, not something to make me think "I deserve this", and most people would think that's it would be odd that a person born into so much would never bother to notice that they have nothing to do with having that wealth and power. At least the nobles of medieval times had some sense that they owed a lot of what they had to the peasents who grew their food and shod their horses. We especially as Americans have (and again this is by design) rendered our servants invisible. I'm not saying you should hang your head in shame for having something, but that you have the obligation that any noble would have -- to not forget that you have privilege to live as you do because of the people under you. At bare minimum is the obligation not to blind yourself to the needs of the people who support you. If that's self-hate, you have a problem. If it's self-hate to say that the Chinese guy who was literally tortured for leaking an iPhone prototype is not unequal to you, then there's no point. There's no such thing as humanism if it only applies when it's comfortable and we don't have to worry our pretty little head about what happens to people who -- again by accident of birth -- have no more power than a medieval dung-shoveller.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 10:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, that's true--didn't even think of that, about women working jobs that are not "senator" or "super powerful person held up as a role model in women's magazine." When I think of women I think of "woman in a magazine or newspaper," not "women I see every day," which is scary. I know some of my coworkers wear makeup, but I really don't care how much (maybe they are all born with it?)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 11:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I hope you are an oil shill or something, because... you know that NASA tracks solar input? If there were a significant difference since the last 30 years, we would know it. I recommend everybody here to read some books about atmosphere, radiation and physics. May that help you understand what exactly all those scientists think about how our world works. It isn't just "oil" or "coal" or "gas". There are meters of top soil that are tilled away, burned wood and grass lands. This is carbon too, you know. But those emissions aren't within the normal Malthusian Radar, except if you are a weird nerd.
Jeeeeesus. As I wrote earlier. When the oil runs out, there isn't anything left over for feminism. Those who shoot first, won't win. Those who cooperate to kill first will win. Either by force or by voluntary abandonment of any luxury first, then sheer deindustrialization or mass murder later. Malthusian Guilt? Come on! Read that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion or anything in this direction.
Answer: "But..but... the peak date set by geologists wanders into the future." Meanwhile, prices go up (additionally because of flooding the market with fiat capital), pollution by now affordable techniques expands and access to resources generally declines because of economic complexity. I envision either something like energy socialism or a dead world. There isn't Malthusian Guilt, but guilt in the sense that we anti-cornucopians see how the all devouring civilization machine works, we see input, capital stock, output and wastes. We epistemological narcissists just gaze at those feminists, gun lovers and religious nuts of all colors and ask ourselves: How can anybody argue about anything, while the very techno-social foundation for this argument seems to crumble within one generation?
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 28, 2013 11:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My great grandmother worked all her life, because she wanted to. she didn't want to marry. My mother was born in 1940. We're talking about her mother's mother, so it was quite some time ago. She ran teh post office in Valentine, nebraska. She married briefly, but he left her, she came into some money, and she wanted to keep that money, so she never married again. She had a life long affair with a man she would not marry and lived with her mother, who raised her child so she could work. she never hid who she was and how she was living, but she didn't advertise it either.
I'm not sure how she managed to not get pregnant again.
She had a cousin who was a lesbian and this woman fell in love and the two women lived together and went to church together every sunday in the Presbyterian church. Again, didn't advertise but didn't hide it either. Black women and children have always worked. Poor women have always worked. It is quite possible it was more common for wealthier women to not work but poor women have always always worked. And of course, if a farm is being operated, sometimes teh whole family worked. My father was born around 1940 and he worked as a child, and by about age 11 he worked full time. People have always adapted to their circumstances and there have always been exceptions to rules. His mother always worked.
As far as having to ask your husband for things being a form of power, that, of course, makes me understand wholeheartedly why many women would rather make their own money and get things by themselves. I love men, I'm not much of a feminist at all, but going to one person for everything you need is nerve wracking and might make you pretty sick of that one person.It might also demolish teh sexual relationship pretty easily. But again, many women had their own power--- look at all teh wealthier women who even did volunteer work and were known for their efforts to improve the community, like the Daughters of teh American Revolution or the Junior League.
Saying women "couldn't" work after marriage is just factually incorrect.
It's common sense to assume that power means one's own assumed power--- not the bits and pieces given to you by your husband. Any woman knows this. It is possible to have an exceptional relationship with your husband but I would say that is probably not that common. I would guess that most women would say their relationship is about average and not exceptional- but that's a guess.
Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
January 29, 2013 1:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Funny. I'm doing my homework, and just came across the famous journalist Nellie Bly, who worked basically all her life, including after she married- and she even had money, she married a millionaire. this is wikipedia:
In 1895 Nellie Bly married millionaire manufacturer Robert Seaman, who was 40 years her senior. She retired from journalism, and became the president of the Iron Clad Manufacturing Co., which made steel containers such as milk cans and boilers. In 1904, her husband died. In the same year, Iron Clad began manufacturing the steel barrel that was the model for the 55-gallon oil drum still in widespread use in the United States. Although there have been claims that Nellie Bly invented the barrel,[21] the inventor is believed to have been Henry Wehrhahn, who likely assigned his invention to her. (US Patents 808,327 and 808,413).[22] Nellie Bly was, however, an inventor in her own right, receiving US patent 697,553 for a novel milk can and US patent 703,711 for a stacking garbage can, both under her married name of Elizabeth Cochrane Seaman.[23] For a time she was one of the leading female industrialists in the United States.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 29, 2013 4:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As an acne-scarred relative told me once, the problem with make up is that at some point it has to be taken off.
It can certainly help a woman put her foot through the door but can her personality cash that check? The danger with fixating on the first part is that it makes us forget about the second part.
Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
January 29, 2013 5:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh my. Doesn't anyone here know any women (or shhhh!! maybe even men... on the sly) who use makeup simply to cover acne or scars? Why does the word "makeup" immediately imply whorish-clownish facepaint?
Sorry, men, you'll never know it, but most women are wearing makeup not to attract you but to decrease the repulsiveness of what they see in the mirror. If a woman thinks she looks fine without it, she probably doesn't waste her time.
Score: 4 (14 votes cast)
January 29, 2013 5:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Decreasing repulsiveness is one of my favorite activities. Unfortunately, it's not limited to the mirror, but is widespread, mostly over the Internet. I use extra strength bug spray.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
January 29, 2013 5:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Make up on, make up. Being concerned with the nature of decorativeness is as superficial as being concerned with being decorative. At least it is in this instance.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
January 30, 2013 12:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How so? She is implementing the Presidents' foreign policy decisions. So where is the power?
I think everyone is missing the point and the discussion is getting sidetracked.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 30, 2013 3:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I dunno. I feel like ranting about "the system" is just one more bit of evidence of the culture of narcissism correctly diagnosed here. There isn't a "system," because "system" implies (deliberately, for would-be rescuers, lazily for those who want to get on to some other point) something rationally designed, by one or at most a few people.
There's no such thing. To the extent this "system" exists, it's just what strictly empirical trends we can infer from the massive vector sum of a a billion or so egos (some living, most now dead) and the decisions they made, and make, some conscious and some no doubt driven by subterranean impulse or sheer genetic determinism traceable to a specific locus on chromosome 22.
This "system" is like the three laws of thermodynamics, just a summary of what is empirically observed. So energy is conserved and entropy increases. Can we trace that to something wired into the physical-law DNA of each proton? Generations of mathematical physicists from Boltzmann on down have tried, and failed. There is no "why" there, at least not with our present understanding, and mathematical incompetence -- for the present it's an emergent phenomenon (wilder theorists argue epiphenomenon) that only arises from uncountable degrees of freedom of interaction. Which is science shorthand for "it just happens."
All this stuff here also just happens, so far as the science (or epiphenomenal illusion thereof) of social psychology is concerned. There is no system, no puppet master(s) pulling everybody's strings, no secret society you can expose (other than that seething behind your own brow), no Grand Knight Of The Order Of Poobahs you can assassinate and thus strike off your own chains. Your belief to the contrary is just part of the blue pill you swallowed to be happy in a chaotic and often meaninglessly sad reality.
The least sophisticated narcissist believes his chains are put on by an evil enemy, who could in principle be struck down, if only he would stop his endless shapeshifting into the accidents of virtue.
The more sophisticated believes his chains are put on by himself, and others by themselves, and preaches his evangelism of self-awareness and self-growth as ardently as the snake-worshipper. Believe! Your faith will save you!
I suggest abandoning narcissism entirely -- if this is not essentially suicidal, given our nature -- requires you to realize there are no chains per se. At which point, logic requires you to reassess the proposition that people will reliably act in their own self-interest when they know what it is, and the still more primitive proposition that people actually make effective decisions at all.
One of the unexpected side-effects of Papa Freud's proposition of the unconscious to the generic 20th and 21st century citizen is he was able to shove the disturbing evidence of decisions inexplicable by an appeal to one's self-interest and rationality into the unconscious. A previous age had to invoke the gods or fate to explain his own inexplicable behaviour. Now we have the unconscious. Or "the system."
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
January 30, 2013 3:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Because the system makes you narcissistic. That's part of the deal. If we stop being narcissists, we stop consuming, we stop demanding trinkets, we stop working for more status symbols and worrying that last month's fashions send the wrong message about us. So if you want to know, that's it.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 30, 2013 4:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
300th comment.
Bring on the downvotes.
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
January 30, 2013 5:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not sure how denying the fact that there are really systems all over the place can enable anyone to overcome any narcissism. Certainly, there are systems and certainly humans create them.
What if someone walked around and said, "There is only me. There are no systems, no mechanisms of coordination or integration or control or hierarchies. Even if there SEEM to be systems, that is just the action of my mind, creating the illusion," would the person who proposed this be sane, or normal, or rational?
It seems to me that original, childhood narcissism starts from the position that what exists is only me and my mind, and that nothing really exists outside of me.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 30, 2013 6:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You don't think there's a wee bit o' daylight between saying there is no system -- The System, you know, all caps, the big machine that tells everyone what to do, not the little bitty systems of the Chicago MTA or Federal Reserve -- and saying there are no systems at all? Good grief.
What if someone walked around and said, "There is only me. There are no systems...
I'd suggest he consult with an expert on autistic spectrum disorders. The first "system" of which any child becomes aware is the system of his mother's mind.
It seems to me that original, childhood narcissism starts from the position that what exists is only me and my mind, and that nothing really exists outside of me.
Fair enough. But it's not a "position" -- it's what your brain actually experiences. It takes a while before you realize there are parts of the universe that (1) exist but (2) of which you are entirely unaware at that moment (but of which you may have had knowledge before, or later). Discovering you have boundaries is a significant cognitive accomplishment.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
January 31, 2013 2:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I dunno. I feel like ranting about "the system" is just one more bit of evidence of the culture of narcissism correctly diagnosed here. There isn't a "system," because "system" implies (deliberately, for would-be rescuers, lazily for those who want to get on to some other point) something rationally designed, by one or at most a few people.
Alright I have to ask: who the hell are you replying to?
Since as far as I can tell, this is a strawman version of the critiques levelledd against the system in this comment thread. Let's not even use scarequotes here because you're fundamentally misunderstanding what is meant by the system.
Let's take a simple example from outside the thread to help us talk about what is meant by a system. For instance, Karl Marx is pretty unequivocal on what the system entails and how it operates, and so is just about any sociological model worth its salt. Is it a model that inevitably glosses over things, and one with historically contingent limitations? Is it one abused by fanatics? Yep and yep! Marx also carefully admits that historical materialism is distinctly limited in such a way, and Engels was adamant on this point.
Are some of these models just plain wrong? Do they fail to account for human irrationality and other factors outside the reach of the contemporaneous science? Yes, and that's why people still continue expand on new models and come up with new perspectives. The fascinating drunken ramblings on this blog, for instance.
The observations in this blog, as I read it at least, are not some self-absorbed theology of a centralized, ideologically-driven control machine imposed by God and/or a tiny cadre of illuminatis/masons who control the press and global finance.
These are still relationships of power. How they're justified between people vary depending on culture, class, race, gender, history, religion etc. but they do take on common themes because -- again, by your own admission -- the human reality is an observable one that does follow distinct, discernible patterns, or in this specific case, a pathology serving to reinforcing the relationship in question, namely the oppression of women.
I suggest abandoning narcissism entirely -- if this is not essentially suicidal, given our nature -- requires you to realize there are no chains per se. At which point, logic requires you to reassess the proposition that people will reliably act in their own self-interest when they know what it is, and the still more primitive proposition that people actually make effective decisions at all.
I don't see where in this blog post any of the observations devolve into a conspiracy theory that presupposes an omnipotent entity or even a system of wholly rational actors (or one entirely imposed from the top down by a central authority). There are phenomena that can be explained this way, to a much more limited degree.
It is a bit on the bizarre side to think that the "system" is also reducible to motives hidden in the unconscious, or that a kind of extreme reductionism can lead us to a thoroughly explanation in human genetics or whatever. If anything that is the type of magical thinking and systematization you want to decry.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 31, 2013 2:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I skipped Carl about the system as I felt he was never going to get there. The system is in existence. "An object does not exist until and unless it is observed." - William Burroughs. We feel it yes, but it is usually not definable for us. However, if one reads Foucault's The Order of Things and The Archaeology of Things you will absolutely - I promise - see it clearer than anyone else here who has not read him and carefully studied him. This is the bedrock of continental philosophy.
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
January 31, 2013 2:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And the Foucauldian Grid I might add is the "fictional" bedrock of Rand's fiction which she wrote when Foucault was but a lad.
Score: -6 (6 votes cast)
January 31, 2013 9:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Systems: hidden systems; invisible systems ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FIdXrjpfXg
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
January 31, 2013 9:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Narcissism as she TLP is using it is an embedded attribute of the personality that forms very early. There is no ego really as the psyche is defended at every point. Spotnitz has written wonderfully about this and his clinical work addresses it.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
January 31, 2013 10:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have a very difficult time listening to her words. I cannot get back in that frame to process what she says the way the comments comment. I am just not there anymore.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
February 1, 2013 4:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Trufax: Every statement that begins with "all women do/want/think/etc" is a sexist statement. The same is true with men. "All men are sexually attracted to makeup" is false and sexist.
The article is idiotic to the point of being laughable. It kind of makes me sick to think that some one who is so incapable of regarding people on an individual level might actually be in contact with people needing mental help.
Secondly, the trope he gives works BECAUSE OF HIS SEXIST BEHAVIOR. He "gives up" on the woman because his only strategy was to bully the man by comparing him to a woman.
If you're a woman: You're fucking nothing shut up bitch I won't help you. That is his response.
This whole article is so pathetic I'm glad to think it was likely written by a manic drunk.
Score: -2 (14 votes cast)
February 1, 2013 4:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You have hit the nail with the hammer. Congratulations.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 1, 2013 4:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I used to want to slice my face or burn it because of this. In my teens I lost a modeling contract due to anorexia. I wasn't trying to be pretty, or perfect. I was trying to free ME, myself, even if it meant I had to die for it.
It was better to die in MY body than live in HERS secretly. I loved my disgusting bones. I loved that men constantly insulted me and told me I looked like a skeleton. If it made their dick shrink an inch that was the goal.
Why? Because I'm me. That's why.
Score: 1 (23 votes cast)
February 1, 2013 7:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am sharing this with everyone I know. TLP is not really blaming women for their oppression. It doesnt matter whose fault it is (although I,for one, blame the patriarchy). Only fighting on the part of the oppressed will change the status quo. Some things I've done which I believe are relevant:
- When I had a technical problem, a female friend offered to help. I felt unsure (because knee-jerk reaction) but I choked the uncertainty and trusted her. Everything went splendid.
- During a company interview,we were asked to split up into two teams. We were three girls. I was naturally inclined to go to the same team as the rest of the girls. I choked this impulse down and went alone to the other team, because grouping up in that case would be perceived as weakness.
- A cab driver made sleazy comments about a friend of mine who was 15 and eating candy more suggestively than his creepy ass could handle. I informed him (being 15 myself) that we hired him to get us from point A to point B and not to talk to us like that. My girlfriends were really shocked at me for how rude I was.
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
February 2, 2013 1:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't imagine why you got down voted. It's a great comment. You're talking about your own personal self, you own feelings and experiences, and I know there are many people who would relate. It does get tiresome when people (mostly men) constantly treat you as if you are theirs and owe them something for the strong reactions and projections you evoke in them. Unlike them, you are an adult and are owning your experience. I wish the average reader of this blog was at all capable of that much. If that were the case, I don't think you would have been down voted. And of course a girl might act out to try to preserve her sense of control, try to assert herself, even if by behavior that is harmful to self. You had a good instinct there still. Lots of women can relate. I can relate.
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
February 2, 2013 6:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Is being beautiful like the "burden" of being from a family of means? Come the fuck on.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
February 2, 2013 8:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I disagree on the point. The point is that women are passive recipients of titles that men have allowed them to have. Those titles are largely irrelevent because the power that the titles represented has largely fled. It's true of Congress and lawyers and so on. Those positions are symbolic of power, but they don't have actual power. And women are taking those positions in part because they think a title is power, or that having a title will make men respect the power of women.
I think that's true, but it only represents half of the picture. I personally think the reason women accept the title rather than demand the power is that they have that power themselves. They don't need to work 100 hours a week to be the CEO if they're married to the CEO, they don't need to be a lobbyist if they married one. So they take the titles so everyone will think "wow, what a powerful woman", yet really no one is fooled. We've known Congress is powerless since at least the 1980s -- no one trembles that Congress is going to pass a law, as they won't pass a law the interferes with business or banking. People do however tremble before the bankers and finance guys, as they can literally take down the economy any time they want to, they can ship your job to China or Southeast Asia if you or what remains of the federal government decides to get too demanding. It's the same trick -- if you vote to unionize, you lose your job, because we'll close that store and move 5 blocks down the road and not hire you. Or move the factory if you demand too much. What's Congress going to do? Not much, because if they did, they'll lose the money that will get them re-elected. Which is why Congress doesn't matter -- they take orders, they don't give them. Nancy Pelosi and others like her are figureheads, not leaders. It's acceptable because women have other means of getting power.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
February 2, 2013 10:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think women who marry into power have the same type of power as their spouse. That's a very silly answer to why so few women occupy ostensible positions of power in society. Marriage has thousands of years behind it as an institution that subjugates women and treats them as the property of men. Catherine the Great was obviously a cultural outlier.
Note that there are also plenty of women who internalize patriarchy's values and represent them among women. The distinction to look for here is in some ways analogous to the old one between the house slave and the field slave. Guess which of these prefers the trappings of power more generally?
Do you see why women are now making the choice to wear makeup?
sidenote: I realize presupposing that external influences exert power over all of us in ways that aren't just direct coercion is deeply disturbing. It's incompatible with how our culture "constructs" the makeup thing - as a choice of a rational agent that exists in a vacuum, making a choice based solely on its utility to her/him - essentially a consumerist "choice" - a classical liberal one as well.
Hence the post's emphasis on the "choice" to wear makeup. It's the sort of social empowerment through consumption that a movement that has been thoroughly co-opted by commercial media outlets like Gawker or Huffington Post make money off of would promote. And they do.
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
February 2, 2013 12:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
1. Only a very few women have access to the kind of power that that kind of marriage conveys. Very few and usually upper class women, and often the career, beautiful, well educated trophy wives later in life. also the way everyone uses the word "power" here is deceptive. Power/knowledge is in a relation and the two can not be separated. (Foucault's entire life work so I won't try to sound-bite it.)
Everyone saying the power is not there is correct. All the titles etc are what Lacan terms "floating signifiers" acting as masks denying what they assert. Once you begin to learn to read floating signifiers, the world we live in is much easier to understand. This entire thread shows that many are getting to the real essence of what is going on concerning women and even touching on Congress, which is now a simulacrum of "power". We all know the prez is just a puppet, a simulacrum himself, but still we argue when election time comes as if he were not.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 2, 2013 12:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes it is. Being born into wealth has different difficulties than being born poor. I understood beauty in a flash when I was going through Indian customs with a beautiful friend of mine. He kept her ages and ages, turning out all her luggage, practically wanting to undress her. And I realized he was doing it just to keep her there in front of him so he could look at her. The ordinary women had all gone through like a hot knife thru butter.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
February 2, 2013 5:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Why many people get the impression that feminism is unlikeable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0fJmDh9X5I
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
February 3, 2013 1:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, ignorant asshole, it is similar. Being from a wealthy family can be quite difficult, because people like you can't empathize with the reality of the situation, thinking your own troubles to be vastly worse, and yourself the only one deserving, apparently, of compassion. As it happens, I grew up with money, as well. It has it's own problems. Not the least of which is contending with people like you.
Score: -7 (11 votes cast)
February 3, 2013 2:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Maybe a start would be agreeing on what power is. It seems to me that some people posting have a definition of power, not well defined at all, as being something rather... almost representing something of which the writer has many opinions but little experience with. Talking about power with an air of knowledge may be their vicarious experience of it, and that doesn't usually lead to good writing or thought.
It makes me wonder about the psyche behind the speaker.
Power is just being able to do what you want, under certain circumstances, and being prevented from doing what you want, under others. It's a paradox. Maybe it should just be defined as: things turning out well. That at least sounds cheerier than saying it's a chimera. Or perhaps power could be defined as having any subjective experience of having it, illusory or not. Just like freedom.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 3, 2013 3:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A story about being raised by a crypto-feminist:
I was 8 or 9 years old? We had a swimming pool. I got the idea that I was going to build a set of wings/parachute/whatever so that I could jump off the roof of our house and glide into the pool. The pilot experiment would use plastic bags. Yeah. I told my dad of my plan, because I was pretty excited.
He went into the basement and got a college-level textbook on Aerodynamics. He handed it to me and said, "When you read this whole thing, then you can jump off the roof." I got about five earnest pages into the introduction and realized that building wings requires math ability beyond arithmetic, also that I would probably break my neck.
Maybe two days later, I said to my dad, "So, I'm not going to jump off the roof. Apparently aerodynamics is really complicated." He said, "I think that's right."
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
February 5, 2013 7:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Mr. Last,
This is the best article I've ever read on the internet. That's meant as a compliment.
a
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 6, 2013 5:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
believing women are oppressed is completely moronic, the point is the insane "oppression" (as in, not literal "oppression" as envisioned by "feminists") women impose on other women.
I can't believe how many people here in the comment section talking seriously about oppression. Get a grip people!
Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
February 6, 2013 6:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anonymous usually has a point, in my experience, in that he wishes to think whatever he wants to, which is a fine point to have, if you happen to be he.
Actually, one can truly say that women are really only oppressed if what they do and think and say independently is reduced to some feature of their gender in a negative way.
So, if communication is read as "whining" and participation is read as ineptitude and women's existence is viewed as having an overall negative character, subject to criticism and censure and disbelief, we can say that women are truly oppressed.
But if this never happens, or hardly happens because we live in a free world, then surely there is no oppression.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 6, 2013 8:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think power is that hard to understand -- it's simply the ability to get other people to obey. If I have power over you, I can get you to do what I want to or say what I want or think what I want you to think. That's power. The more I can take control of how you live, the more power I have over you.
It's not all that complex, except that people don't always like to admit they have power.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
February 6, 2013 8:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your concept of power is of a past time. Power dowes not exist alone. Power is always in a relation with knowledge, it is the power/knowledge Grid, Mesh, Matrix so painfully and exhaustively described by Foucault. No one in cutting edge thinking anymore uses power as something someone has, gives, trades, uses, or anything else. Power lies in the micro interstices of the grids exerting itself on the body, the mine, the organs, even your very cells. Now you can dominate someone, but you cannot hold power over them. This is post modern thinking and once you jettison the old baggage, a new world opens up to you.
Score: -7 (7 votes cast)
February 7, 2013 10:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm definitively one of those women who would NEVER conceive going through a day without make up! Great, great article!!
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 7, 2013 6:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know if it's late but I can't understand if your post has any logic or meaning. What I seem to understand is that once someone dismissed the opinion of a woman, ergo women are oppressed, or something. I'll try to read your post again with a fresher mind
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 7, 2013 6:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I bet an American will speak up now and say that I said one of them was remarkably stupid. I don't know. I'll try to see if there is any meaning in what this person said if I wake up.
(Americans!!!)
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 7, 2013 8:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think the message is: The world sucks. What will you do with your life?
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 8, 2013 9:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There are no metaphysical solutions to the problem of gender. Eschewing showiness is an idea that has its basis in moral reasoning, but the continuation of gender hierarchies do not depend on the presence of particular characteristics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDFebbdyOcQ
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 8, 2013 10:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am assuming you know Judith Butler's work on gender. That gender is socially constructed. Wearing make up is a social behavior that is part of the social construction of gender. To go into all the psychological garbage about for and against, etc etc that this thread has been dwelling on just indicates that few people here have opened themselves to continental philosophy. The psychological is part of the dying Dominating Discourse.
Score: -6 (10 votes cast)
February 8, 2013 11:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Django was an uncomfortable ass movie. Nothing I've ever seen about slavery has affected me so much, probably because something like Amistad or Roots so overwhelms the guilt-circuits that nothing can be taken in. Neither, as I recall, have the depth of ambiguity as Django… I don't remember any black "turncoats" in either of them (but maybe my guilt-circuits don't allow me to).
In Alone's story, to follow the Django metaphor, the women who watched another woman nearly (?) get raped, and then putatively bitched at the girl for kicking the guy in the face, were just like Stephen, the head house slave, or Django on his horse when he watched the beat-up old slave get ripped apart by dogs… even invited Candie to do it.
At both of these inflection points, Stephen and Django were despicable.
At both points, they had a purpose (self-preservation) and they had power (the power to object, to counsel) but they refused to use it to further their own agendas. They were (semi-)outside the system, and yet complicit.
You want to hate their craven, selfish guts, but at the same time, you squirmingly understand that the system put them in that place to begin with. Yet they still had agency. They could have objected. They could have not actively led things along. Because Django goads Candie into tearing up that slave with his dogs, and Stephen outs Brunhilde's connection on purpose. Neither were accidental. Both were acts of evil.
Candie's sister -- his SISTER, not wife, for you people who weren't really paying attention -- was similar. She had power. Not as much power as a white man but she clearly had more than a slave. She was complicit, happy to take a slave comfort girl up to a German visitor to explore her ample vagina, as TLP said. Certainly she reveled in her superiority.
Django was a helluva lot smarter of a movie than people give it credit for. They just hear the "nigger" and they just saw the gratuitous squibs in the gunfight and they went "Yay! Kill the white lady!" and "Yay! Django got his Brunhilde and escaped!" — and they hated Candie and they hated Stephen… but never questioned the fact that nobody chose their roles, the whole system fucked everyone, in the end. That the hero, Django, was just as morally ambiguous and loathable as head house slave Stephen… if not more so.
The only person who chose his role was Dr King Schultz, a foreigner. He was a dentist; he became a bounty hunter. He was neither born a slave nor a slave owner. If he had an origin story of how the system made him a bounty hunter out of fate and not agency, we didn't hear it. He freed Django like an act of god. Not because Django "deserved" it, but simply because Django had a fact that Schultz wanted. But we know that despite his crustiness, Schultz was good. Even when he was goading Django into shooting a man (however guilty) from a great distance, right in front of his kid.
And naturally, the one true character expresses his true freedom in a final capstone act — the only true freedom in the whole movie — by shooting Candie right at the apogee of the film. When you think it's over, and Django and Brunhilde will get away no more worse for wear. Schultz shoots Candie because Candie disgusts him and because Schultz is the only free character in the whole damn charade. And so King Schultz dies, because he was the only truly free man, the only man who seized power instead of having it conferred.
That was when the movie ended for me. The rest of the movie didn't hang together like the part before Schultz's death. It's like the studios went back to Tarantino and said "What? You can't end like that. Give us some fucking squibs. We want an improbable gunfight."
Honestly, I hadn't seen any Tarantino movies between Deathless and Django. I don't watch Nazi movies. So I was quite aghast at the whole thing… ridiculous gunfights, I was prepared for; to feel real feelings for Schultz, I was not. To have to look away from true emotional violence (the man torn apart by dogs, the two slaves fighting to the death and the winner thanking Candie so pathetically for a beer, Brunhilde coming out of the hotbox…). I was shocked, surprised, not sure I really want to say "delighted" because it was an emotional abuser of a movie, but props, Tarantino. Props.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
February 8, 2013 11:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you would like darren in Dublin Ireland's review of Django. He is on your wavelength. He is consistently the most informed of any reviewer I read. http://www.them0vieblog.com so I hope you link there. I love Tarantino also.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 9, 2013 5:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
DAE object to Candie's sister being killed so frivolously? The gales of laughter elicited from the audience by the way she was killed were also pretty unsettling.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 9, 2013 6:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hilarious that it hasn't occurred to anyone that some women wear make up because it's fun. Dressing up is fun. The masquerade is fun. I'd wear make up if everyone else in the world was blind because I like how it looks. I like my face too, but I can't naturally have blue eyelids or blood-red lips. That's where choice comes into the equation. If you're doing it because you feel obligated to, that sucks. But if you enjoy it, the reason doesn't matter. That would include, imo, male attention. Although it is distressing to see so many women addicted to male attention or approval (even in the comments here, note how many feel the need to say 'and I'm a woman!' when stating their opinion. Please, can I please be in the cool boy's club?).
Anyway, it isn't much of a revelation that women are often groomed to be agents of the patriarchy. But I think the examples givnn were poor. The expectation that a woman should be more likely to help another woman being raped ignores the social dynamics. Women are, first and foremost, people and most people can be kept in check by social pressure. The girls in the room didn't help for the same reason that the boys in the room didn't. It wasn't an issue of gender to them. It was a person they didn't know being hurt by people they did know. Period. No gender dynamics, no "my fellow woman." Are we really surprised that there isn't total solidarity among 50% of the earth's population? Women are individuals, with different needs, different concerns, various interests, conflicting opinions and of course different levels of education and life experience. Human beings aren't set up to be naturally altruistic towards each other unless we're related. In order for us to assume there is something wrong with the girls in the room not coming to another's aid, we have to believe that without the oppressive system, they'd naturally do so.
I don't think they would. With slaves we can point to physical structures and practices that they all witnessed and were all aware of. Every slave knew slavery, they knew their position, they felt it. But with Patriarchy, not all women even agree it exists. Many women have never heard the word. Many women have never been raped and either haven't experienced sexism or didn't recognize it when it happened. You have to be aware of a system to want to dismantle it.
And I actually don't think we need to focus on teaching men not to rape, we need to focus on teaching them what qualifies as consent. Because a lot of rapists don't think of themselves as rapists and would be pretty appalled if someone called them one.
Anyway, erroneously labeling Anonymous as "men" was intellectually dishonest (much about this writing style is). And I agree the writer seems to be ignoring the fact that it was a woman who broke the story and allowed anonymous to pursue it in the first place.
Score: 6 (22 votes cast)
February 9, 2013 7:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Excellent comment. thank you.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 10, 2013 1:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Awesome article. I'm not sure how much of it I agree with but I always find your writing very good at giving food for thought, which is something that is sorely lacking in this world. I'll chew on the points made in this article for a while and have been made that much wiser for it.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 10, 2013 10:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A related point made in a different TLP article, talks about women at a bar having all having "Jennifer Aniston" hair.
The women that acknowledge the resemblance, but like it because they like it, are perfectly healthy.
If they completely deny a resemblance (or that male attention may factor into the enjoyment of makeup wearing), look out.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 10, 2013 10:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You're the kind of dude who thinks he has the universal perspective, and is able to authoritatively comment on everything, which is why, probably, you don't get why Valenti didn't actually expand on the ad. First off, it's a tweet. Secondly, it's generally accepted in activist communities (though definitely not widely enough) that people are specialists in their own experiences, i.e. Valenti is not a man, and furthermore focuses on women's issues professionally, therefore she doesn't feel she can expand on the issue, but will still point out something she finds interesting (again, in a fucking tweet.) No, she definitely means "we" outside of Feministing, which is the reason she refrained from writing a 1,000 word post on the matter in the first place. Not writing something because you don't feel knowledgeable enough is something women are more likely to do. The further down you go on a social scale, the more likely that's to happen. You, on the other hand, are seemingly incapable of shutting up and listening, as are many (though definitely not all) men.
Score: -7 (15 votes cast)
February 10, 2013 11:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think that criticism toward the lack of solidarity between women was aimed more at the inability (or shallow treatment) of the commercial media's co-opted pseudo-feminism to deal with the notion that women are complicit in patriarchy (and by my own inference, the goals of feminism in general).
This phenomenon of blog/news magazine "feminism" has devolved into a lifestyle branding gimmick and not something oriented toward genuine freedom or power, just the appearances thereof.
All of this is a pretty common marketing and PR technique and it is applied to all demographics in marketing in America.
That it's actually worked its way into inflecting how we talk about parts of our society that are/were powerful, like the Senate, should give people pause IMO.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 10, 2013 4:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think here it's also necessary to acknowledge that "feminism" isn't one philosophy, specifically the differences between second and third wave.
Whereas a second wave feminism is likely to argue a woman wanting something because a man likes it is problematic, a third wave feminist is more likely to argue that the autonomy is what's important and why she wants it is none of anyone's business.
The confusion arises because both of these viewpoints are identified simply as "feminist." And instead of being seen as different schools of thought, they are viewed as conflicting or hypocritical ideals within a single movement.
I don't know a single third wave feminist unaware that women often (and enthusiastically) perpetuate the patriarchy. One only has to look at FGM practices in Islamic countries and see who most fiercely defends the practice. It's not the men.
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
February 10, 2013 4:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The last movie of the great radical Ousmane Sembene from Senegal - Moolaade - is about cutting of young girls and you are correct. Now it seems that American women are going in for plastic surgery genital cutting to make their vagina look tighter, cleaner less floppy looking to the tune of $5000 or so. Oh well, it's about the same as make up, right! LOL!
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 10, 2013 7:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah good, 2nd/3rd wave distinction is something I've heard of but not to well schooled on the nuances.
Also, yeah I think the focus I assume in the blog post here is more on elements that have been co-opted and hired to sell products and shape the discourse to subtly perpetuate the patriarchy through clickbait blog posts. They're not serious academics or social justice activists, but they are some of the loudest voices nonetheless.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 11, 2013 9:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is a great read for women. I have always taught my daughters to be independent and forward thinking because there is no Cinderella nor sleeping beauty in real life. I wear make up because Im defiant of the notion that pretty women are weak women. Even at the gym, being feminine rocks.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 8:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, they may not be complicit in the "patriarchy, but I do think they're complicit in the Matrix. Think about the Obama cabinet, he was criticized for having too few women in his cabinet. But there are other ways that the Obama cabinet was far from diverse. It was probably 99% white, almost all of them were the upper part of the upper class, from wealthy families, That's not remotely diversity. And I think Feminism especially opening the doors of such places to women (provided of course that they come from the proper upper crust background) is a way to prevent real diversity.
The things that an upper class white woman wants are probably 90% in line with what an upper class white man wants. If it was an upper class black man, he might very well have different ideas of what to do. Which I think is the reason why some "rights movements" are more equal than others. It's not about a woman (or gays for that matter) getting power, it's about using women and gays to prevent racial minorities from getting power. If "diversity" can be achieved by having upper class white women and upper class white gays then you don't have to let blacks have power at all. After all, you already have minorities in power, I mean we hired the CFO's gay son and the wife of a politician, so we don't need to worry about diversity. Check and check. So now we go on with doing whatever we want and we're above criticism because if someone notices our demographics, we point out the gay guy and the woman. Diversity without viewpoint diversity isn't diversity, yet that's what happens -- rich people from rich backgrounds decide, which is why good ideas get left behind.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 8:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Exactly. They are used as "floating signifiers" which act as masks to dissemble what they appear to assert - reading through Lacan. And our BLACK president is far WHITER than I am.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 9:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I sincerely hope by "more white" you're referring to his literal ethnicity and not his culture. I hate it when people argue Obama isn't "black enough." Anyone who would be forced sit in a "coloreds only" section is "black enough."
And once we begin to understand that American construction of "black" (which obviously comes from the one drop rule) we realize that white (and "whiteness") is also a construct. I'd see both identities dismantled.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 1:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"And I actually don't think we need to focus on teaching men not to rape, we need to focus on teaching them what qualifies as consent. Because a lot of rapists don't think of themselves as rapists and would be pretty appalled if someone called them one."
I think you should focus on not seeing men as mindless idiotical animals to teach and educate, and realize that 99% of men are civilized people who won't even fantasize about rape.
I feel sorry for rape victims (of course) but when people (feminists) go on and on about the need of "teaching men to" I feel legitimately threatened, and my concern switches from rape victims to all these ugly, insane feminists hell bent on "teaching" men.
Rapists are wicked people, if they didn't learn not to rape (or if they did, and they don't care), the focus should be on teaching women how to defend themselves and everyone how to get involved (using force, even in revenge, directed at the rapist, instead of brainwashing- I mean "teaching" whatever to men as a whole, as if they were brainless troglodytes.)
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 1:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
your posting is a construct
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 1:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Nice comments anyway people, full of novel and refreshing ideas like "races are a construct" and "we must teach men not to rape". I feel my brain has been so refreshed by these novel concepts and insights that it feels like I'm an entirely new person
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 3:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Having worked with Joseph Wolpe in his Behavior Therapy Unit at EPPI in the 1970's it was there that therapy was done with rapists. Their profile was rather simple. They could not make eye contact with a woman, were too anxious to talk to a woman, could not date a woman, and so could not engage in sex with a woman because they could not get to that point. Desensitization was the initial treatment of choice. To pictures of women, clothed, then finally nude. Then desensitization in vivo with a woman, often a female therapist. Dating in vivo and finally a paid sex surrogate provided the sexual encounter in vivo. It was a long process and expensive. Probably not as expensive as keeping a rapist in jail, but then prisons have their own intersection with capitalism that continues to grow and grow and grow.
So those of us who worked with them do not see them as evil, as bad, as criminal, but as men who are very fearful of women and so anxious in their presence that any social interaction is not possible for them.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 3:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree that "blackness and whiteness" are socially constructed. I also see that Obama's first cabinet was composed of a number of "white financial suits", who had been influential in creating the mess. As Einstein has said, - paraphrasing - the minds that got us in the mess are not likely to be the ones to get us out of it. What they have done is inflate like crazy to pay off those trillions to the banks, their gambling debts instead of letting them crash. That they are going to crash later or sooner is inevitable. Gas is not going up, the price of gas is not inflated, the dollar is tanking. We are in what Douglas Casey has described as an inflationary depression. He predicted it in the 1980's but it was held off. Now it is world wide, leaving no currency a safe place to hold your money as they all "float" relative to one another. All the currencies are being devalued, and that is what inflation is. Obama is holding it together for one last squeeze, and it will be the last. Reagan and Volcker raised the interest rates to cut it in the 1980's. This cannot be repeated. Interest rates are at historic lows, the economy is crap, so you raise the rates and well do I need to say more.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 3:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
They are not wicked, just terrified of women. See my post below that is anonymous by mistake on Behavior Therapy with rapists.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 3:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I read that, interesting. Anyway, wicked or not, I think it's obvious that rapists are a specific segment of the population, and we don't need ugly feminists to teach "men" as a whole not to rape. Usually they use the need to "teach men" just to air their grievances that are mostly unrelated to actual rapes
Anyway, please post more on that because it sounds interesting
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 4:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
They are not wicked, just terrified of women.
You're not stupid, you're just afraid of rejecting stereotyping, which means you're afraid of critical thinking.
Cool story though, hyperfeminist broheem. Nice job of implying it's all about being XY and all due to The Patriarchy.
Maybe you should go hang out at Shakesville.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 4:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Lolz, 99% of men, is that right? Is that why 1/3 of the women in the military are raped by male peers? Is that why 1 in 5 American women have been sexually assaulted? Is that why when surveying college aged men about rape, one in 12 admitted behavior that meets the legal definition of rape but 86% didn't label it as rape?
The truth is that a lot of young men think rape is holding someone down and having sex with them while they kick and scream. They don't think having sex with someone who is passed out is rape. They think that if they have a sexual relationship with a woman and she says no, she just needs to be convinced. They think that a totally silent, unblinking rigid girl underneath of them is consenting. So yeah, I think we do need to talk about consent with young men. It has nothing to o with feminism and everything to do with expectations of social interactions. I'm pretty sure no guy wants to accidentally rape a chick. No harm would come from discussing what is and isn't rape. It's not brainwashing, for the love of god.
And I never said women shouldn't be taught self-defense. But that isn't always an option. And since most women are raped by people they know, the nonsense about avoiding strangers and not walking home when it's dark and blah blah blah doesn't prevent rape.
We were able to change the cultural attitude about spousal rape by teaching men and women that forcing your spouse to have sex *is* rape. It's now something frowned upon when just a few decades ago, it was legal. And that didn't come from a "don't rape" campaign. It came from a "what you're doing is rape" campaign.
Score: 2 (14 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 4:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
1970 was forty years ago. You should read this reddit thread from various men who have raped women and what they have to say about why and how.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/x6yef/reddits_had_a_few_threads_about_sexual_assault/
A lot of it comes down to entitlement and not understanding body language/consent.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 4:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you seem to have memorized a lot of (dubious) percentages on men being a race of rapists
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 4:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What makes you think I memorized them? Although the women in the military percentage is very well known and likely much higher. A woman in the US military is much more likely to be raped by a male peer than killed in combat.
If you'd like citations, just ask. They aren't dubious at all. Most women I know have been raped and all have had someone try. I didn't realize until I was older, but it is just incredibly common.
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 4:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And "male" isn't a race.
The problem isn't men, it's our culture that reinforces certain ideas. Like I said, spousal rape was fine until it wasn't.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 5:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone: Do you want power, or the trappings of power?...the town's defense amazingly appears to be she was a slut and she was asking for it, and my point is: so what? Why didn't the other women stop it anyway? Why didn't they just rise up?
Because the other women and the rapists were perceiving the same corrupted version of reality. They viewed the girl the same way; had the other women been guys, some would no doubt have joined in the 'fun'. The other women didn't stop it because they'd been corrupted by the system; they'd gotten their shameful desires under control. As conformists, they'd automatically despise girls who couldn't or wouldn't control their shameful biological desire.
There is no person we hate so much as the person who represents the things about ourselves we are secretly ashamed of. When I was trying to please everyone I met decades ago, I would be anything to anyone if I thought it might impress them (clearly, I had a non-existent Self).
No one I've ever met was as fake as I being, but whenever I'd come across someone who was clearly fake, they'd disgust me. No one likes that kind of a mirror.
I was doing it all to impress girls but all I could really ever achieve was to sweep guys off their feet. Some would rave & gush in delight. We'd bond straight away. Occasionally their bursts of exuberance made things very awkward for everybody but whenever I slipped up or if someone noticed my stories were a little shifty, I would quickly wriggle out of trouble almost every time. I think this is because guys want to believe or perhaps they're simply not as prone to second-guessing their initial impression.
Girls however, wanted absolutely nothing to do with me. It would drive me to hysterics trying to figure out what I could have possibly said or done to some girl who had just taken an immediate dislike to me. There were a lot of girls who did that.
There is no person we hate so much as the person who represents the things about ourselves we are secretly ashamed of. I swept guys off their feet but I couldn't fool girls. They saw my sleazy fraud coming from a mile away, and they were disgusted. No one likes that kind of a mirror.
Score: 8 (14 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 6:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Matt: The flipside to the question "Why don't women empower themselves?" is the question "Why do men continue to oppress women?"The answer is that The System of male power sustains itself. It never enters men's heads to relinquish their power, in the same way that it never enters women's heads to grasp REAL power.
I think you're correct but I disagree in your assertion that it sustains itself. There is far too much acid flying around for that to be true. To determine who is sustaining the system, simply identify the acid-throwers (whether real or virtual, the acid destroys girls fairly conclusively and often fatally [Amanda Todd was a victim of Society's virtual acid]).
The Answer is that The System of male power is sustained by religion, in tandem with women. They couldn't do it without women because, in the race to imprint children with countless versions of corrupted images, mothers will always be first.
Mothers who buy into the religious lie and taken ownership of it are responsible for sustaining the status quo. But everyone is guilty, really. Girls who don't care for the acid are dangled the 'opportunity' to exploit the unfathomable credulity of guys responding to corrupted market forces (religious-induced hoarding), who stupidly engage each other in fierce competition to treat girls Right (spoil them, literally). It's all wrong. So, so wrong. Girls who are treated Right their entire lives have no incentive to increase the value of their mind; and when they do realise their aesthetic appeal is fading with time, they find themselves trapped between the rock that is [their incapacity / aversion to rolling up their sleeves to earn their keep] and the hard place that is [the irrational Toddler entitlement to which they've become accustomed].
With their undeveloped & largely wasted minds (predominantly expended on gender-defeating [i.e. species-defeating] competitive games involving illusions of perception that aren't even real, like beauty [which is not in the eye of the beholder but rather in their conditioned perception*]), girls exploited by their own preference for preferential treatment find themselves racing the clock as the body in which they've sunk most of their investment capital is inevitably traded down to zero on the public market. Before time runs out, a man must be caught. A union must be formed between a deceived host and the desperate leech (and you know, wanting a legal or social contract to bind someone to your side when they don't wish to remain is not insane at all, but only if you're into domestic violence). A child or children must be produced to seal the sordid affair, at which point everything turns to custard for Humanity.
*SE Asia's obsession with skin whitening cream v the West's obsession with tanning salons; for example. Beauty is a product of conditioned perception, and no two humans perceive the same reality.
Because what could a girl who has been treated Right her entire life possibly know about intelligent child-raising? All she will know is how to love and lie and run emotional game on her children. And surprise, surprise, that's how children are raised. Mothers only Know Best how to survive a world of emotionally insane men produced by the mothers who preceded them. When they've been treated Right their entire life, mothers cannot be expected to know anything conducive to intelligent child-raising. Their children will not be raised to think critically or suspiciously, logically or reasonably, pragmatically or rationally; they will not be (un)emotionally stable and sane. They will not be practised experts in decision-making in uncertainty nor will they be given the opportunity to take ownership of their own choices which includes learning to wear the subsequent consequences of ill-advised or hasty decisions.
Children don't need their mother's compassion, sympathy and pity! DH Lawrence never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself and neither have I; have you? Mothers emotionally degrade their children with these self-defeating religious constructs (jealousy, revenge, avarice, envy, vindictiveness, spite, scorn, inferiority, superiority, malice, cruelty, entitlement by 'right' of birth, fear, terror, bravery, charity, justice [2 eyes, 2 teeth = 4 injuries that are less likely to deter further injury than ignite vendetta], law, morality, respect for things unrelated to merit, hatred, love etc) - none of this insane religious corruption has ever served anyone's interests but they will make an entire species face-plant fairly compulsively.
Children need accurate information and honest intelligence. They don't need their mother's emotional degradation; her shame, her fears, her anti-social behaviour, her obsession with deceit for the purposes of manipulation (diplomacy, politeness, etiquette, manners, small talk - all as insulting and degrading and transparent as lying for social cohesion & diplomacy has ever been). Children don't need to be raised to please their mothers or to please the creepy public-at-large.
Children need to be raised to please themselves, to motivate themselves, to act in their own Selfish best interests (which will include the best interests of Humanity unless the child is retarded / insane / incapable of perceiving the optimality of mutual advantage). Children don't need to be protected from reality with surreptitious fantasy & make-believe; they need to be protected from those who would patronise them with the degrading and outrageous lie that suggests children cannot handle the truth and therefore must be lied to (for their sake, of course).
The second greatest lie ever sold to (and bought wholesale by) our species is that children need to be raised to love their mothers. Whoa.
To what end does this serve? Nowhere in the animal kingdom will you see this; it's supposed to be the other way around, with the mother willing to lay down her life as a deterrent mechanism but only for the shortest amount of time it takes to make their offspring independent and capable of protecting themselves. In humans, we do things insanely differently. Mothers make their children dependant; they're drowned in emotional toxins leaving them pliable and manipulable and irrefutably susceptible to exploitation. Mean words. They hurt like sticks and stones, when you've been the victim of your mother's emotional molestation. Mothers lie to their children to protect them. It's for the child's sake, the Protection racket. Of course.
This horrific cycle is serving no one's interests but it is not men but women who are sustaining it; girls who want to be treated Right and mothers lying to their sons about women and sex, corrupting their minds with religious impurities and emotional filth. As a result, men simply cannot respect honest girls. Men can only respect dishonest girls who manipulate them, play filthy games of coy, coquette, demure and reduce them with creepy emotional smear.
Girls need to stop imagining it is in their interests to exploit male credulity for preferential or entitled treatment. Guys need to stop enabling this misogynistic carry-over from the Dark Ages. The only Right way to treat a human being of any gender is with equality and honesty and an appreciation that you are investing in your own future welfare. This is the only true Selfishness. Religion fucked you all senseless.
Playing the Blame Game is insane because this madness is destroying everybody. No one is advantaging from the misery generated by the oldest, dumbest lie ever sold to (and bought wholesale) by our idiotic species. Only Truth can save this miserable wretch of a failed species, and all the problems in the world are sourced from this very issue (which might be why Alone is drilling away at it).
First, the lie needs to become an anathema. It's 100% Yahweh religious corruption and misogyny perhaps most aptly illuminated not by the vicious hatred in the OT towards women but by the vicious hatred in the NT directed at women remaining true to their biology:
John 8:10-11 (KJV) 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Women, stop condemning girls who remain true to their biological advantages over men. I've not met a girl who didn't instantly know what I was talking about; but some men are awfully confused.
[Tiresias] beheld snakes copulating on Cyllene, and that having wounded them he was turned from a man into a woman, but that on observing the same snakes copulating again, he became a man. Hence, when Hera and Zeus disputed whether the pleasures of love are felt more by women or by men, they referred to him for a decision. He said that if the pleasures of love be reckoned at ten, men enjoy one and women nine. Wherefore Hera blinded him.
Hera throwing that acid. Mothers who desire careers as housewives raise their(?) children to love and please them, and they imagine this to be power. They're believe they're in control but it's the opposite; they've been controlled. Stupid Toddler fools and their vile acid and hatred of truth.
Go, and LIE no more. Or do, what do I care. It's almost certainly all going up in mushroom clouds when the resources run out. 5000 years of lies, deceit, acid and emotional insanity? With no threats or enemies in a world of ludicrous abundance for all? Oh bravo humans. You love your games.
This one was nicely played.
Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
February 12, 2013 7:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Asking why slaves didn't rise up is like asking why prisoners don't. They outnumber the guards, after all. So are they just mentally conditioned by the system to sit tight? Or are they deterred by the metal bars, armed guards, security systems, chained gates, and x billion humans willing to act as watchdogs? Lots of amazing insight here as usual, but maybe don't use slavery as an example in your next "the problem is you" exposé.
Your argument is babbling nonsense that reveals your ignorance of historical facts widely known to small children. Do you think slaves in the South were guarded by metal bars, armed guards, security systems, chained gates and x billion human watchdogs?
Mother of god. How do you imagine such nonsense and then make a comical recommendation based off your idiotic conclusion that slaves were prisoners? When Alone says "the problem is you", I mean I don't speak for the man but I'd wager a testicle he really means the problem is YOU. In particular.
There was a fellow, went by the name of John Brown. You heard of this man? Fine chap, top brand of human (even if he was a subscriber to Yahweh's insanity). He'd be the sort of man you'd go over the top with if he looked you in the eye and said, "This is to be done and we are to be the ones to do it."
Great man. Not just an American hero but a Hero of Humanity. He was hung for treason by the government and, to be fair, he was guilty. He was oh-so-heroically-guilty, one fairly greens with envy at his guilt. What this man did was amazing. With his sons and just a few men, he freed all the slaves in Virginia one day in 1859. True story.
He took Harper's Ferry where some moron afraid of a slave uprising had placed 100,000 rifles. John Brown and his men took those rifles, they took control of the entire armoury. With 100,000 rifles and control of the armoury, with only some drunken townspeople firing pot shots at them, they were then able to free all the slaves in Virginia.
This was to be the plan:
Brown intended to use those rifles and pikes he captured at the arsenal, in addition to those he brought along, to arm rebellious slaves with the aim of striking terror in the slaveholders in Virginia. He believed that on the first night of action, 200-500 black slaves would join his line. He ridiculed the militia and regular army that might oppose him. He planned to send agents to nearby plantations, rallying the slaves. He planned to hold Harpers Ferry for a short time, expecting that as many volunteers, white and black, would join him as would form against him. He would move rapidly southward, sending out armed bands along the way. They would free more slaves, obtain food, horses and hostages, and destroy slaveholders' morale. Brown planned to follow the Appalachian Mountains south into Tennessee and even Alabama, the heart of the South, making forays into the plains on either side.
He literally accomplished all that.
Just one tiny problem that John Brown didn't foresee. It's something someone like Alone would see coming but someone like you? You'd never see it coming.
It's kind of embarrassing for John Brown because you see, it was all a big misunderstanding. There were no slaves in Virginia in 1859. I know right. Who knew?
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 3:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"and "male" isn't a race" completely pedantic, that line was an obvious joke, what a superior intelligence...
anyway, it seems like we live in two completely different worlds, or maybe every man is really a rapist and I'm the last non rapist on earth. In that case, good luck with solving the problem with teaching instead of just arming yourself and fighting back rapists.
Just know that I don't think feminists should arrogantly claim the moral right to "teach" men how to do whatever, especially when your "non rape" message would just fall on the ears of who doesn't rape already.
Also please if you want to argue further, don't post meme- non arguments like "every second, 100% of women are raped" or "don't teach women how to defend themselves and how to reduce risks, teach men how not to rape" (why would you ever want not to teach women how to defend themselves and how to be cautious is beyond my comprehension. Also how the hell can you claim that modern society doesn't teach men that raping is bad? Pure hysterical insanity), how can you assume anyone didn't hear these non-arguments, non-truths a billion times before? It's obvious I don't agree.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 4:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Uh. But I never said women shouln't be taught self-defense. In fact I said, in a post, that was helpful sometimes too (but certainly not always.)
Honestly I don't think you read my entire post. If you go to the reddit post I linked to, you'll see a lot of men who raped women and didn't know until afterwards.
And it's not just men who need to be taught what consent is and isn't. My 86% stat isn't a meme. It's pretty consistent. Men will say "rape is bad" and then, when given less common scenarios that still meet the legal definition of rape, they'll often say it's okay.
That's not malicious intent or "all men are evil" it's a lot of people genuinely not knowing that if you have sex with a woman, then get drunk and she passes out, you having sex with her the second time is rape.
Again, it worked just fine with spousal rape.
But wait, I'm sure you'd rather against man-hating straw feminists so: ALL MEN ARE VIOLENT RAPISTS AND THEIR RAPE GENE NEEDS TO BE DEACTIVATED EARLY ON WITH INDOCTRINATION OR THEY ARE A TICKING RAPE BOMB. WOMEN SHOULD NEVER LEARN SELF-DEFENSE OR TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY BECAUSE THAT'S...OFFENSIVE OR SOMETHING
Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 4:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are a fanatic about rape. The second time in lovemaking is rape? Gimme a break. How do you know the woman isn't feigning passing out? Why would you get drunk afterwards anyway?
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 4:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I was giving an example of something that is legally rape (in many US states, if you dont like the law, take it up elsewhere?) but that many people are unaware of.
Your reaction of "that's totally not rape" actually proves my point. You're a person who would possibly commit the act and not be aware that you could be charged with sexual assault.
Like I said, we all know rape is bad, but way too many of us don't know what rape *is*. I assume by "fanatic" you mean "more well informed than I am."
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 7:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Over at Partial Objects...Today is the day
http://partialobjects.com/2012/12/february-13-2013-the-school-shooting-pivot-date/#comments
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 9:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, yes and no. I would refer to him as an upper class black man, which means yes, he's black, but I think there are differences that would make his viewpoint more in line with his CLASS rather than his race. He never went to a ghetto school in the inner city where most kids were going to look forward to a life of either prison or manual labor. He wasn't raised in a neighborhood where drugs and guns were everywhere. So in that sense, he doesn't have the same type of experiences of a poor kid from the ghetto.
Obama lived a life of privilege -- he travelled the world, he got to go to elite universities. For a lot of middle to lower middle class people, that would be impossible. And so to my mind he's Upper Class FIRST, then black, because having money has a great deal of impact on what kinds of things are normal to you.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 10:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You always see others as not-yourself, as other, have you noticed that? It's really freaking annoying. Then you talk about those others as if you know all about them, which is ironic. Do you ever simply talk about what you yourself know?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 10:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dear Johnny,
this is you: preseveration
repetition [rep-i-tish-uhn] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: duplication; doing again
Synonyms: alliteration, broken record, chant, chorus, copy, echo, encore, ingemination, iteracy, iterance, iteration, litany, paraphrase, periodicity, perseveration , practice, reappearance, recapitulation, recital, recurrence, redundancy, rehearsal, reiteration, relation, renewal, reoccurrence, repeat, repetitiousness, replication, report, reproduction, restatement, return, rhythm, rote, staccato, tautology
Antonyms: instance
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 11:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is erroneous. He isn't a poor black person, or a poor white person. So his demographic is upper class African American.
Most black people don't make the type of money Obama makes, but neither do most white people. His economic class and race are two different issues. Poor black people may be poor first and then black. Or maybe they're southern first. Or Christian first. You, as outsider can't say which identity had more impact on someone else's life. And being upper class and black is distinctly different from class white anyhow.
Ghetto and black are not synonymous.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 12:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are making an error of categories. Legality is in the Order of Production. there is also a Symbolic Order. Ayn Rand has been repeatedly accused by PC feminists of the so called "rape" scene in which Dominique and Roark first have sex. she has replied, "If it was rape then it was rape by invitation." Rand was in the Symbolic Order in most of her writing, which accounts for the impact she has had. (Stephenie Meyer too BTW.)The post modern feminists do not make this kind of mistake: Malabou; Zuzanna; et al.
Jean Baudrillard has emphasized the classic - get that! CLASSIC - definition of rape which is NOT to force yourself upon a woman, but to force enjoyment on the woman.
Now I don't know if you have ever been in the throes of passion - lust - (somehow I doubt it) but in that state if surveillance cameras were recording, they would record "rape". I can personally tell you it was not.
All this is to say that in the Symbolic Order you will NEVER know which is which when the signs become ambiguous. Sometimes the woman herself does not know as she fights herself from surrender. The old best sellers before everything became porno explicit, knew this very well. Read Frank Yerby, he knew it. Emily Bronte in Wuthering Heights knew it.
But yes, in the Order of Production you are correct. If you are discussing "rape" in the legal sense, that's where you are. 2 years ago Atlantic Monthly in January ran two articles on this. Coeds now at frat parties get sticking falling down drunk to signal availability for sex and are often, yes, raped in their drunken stupor. The author of the article wonders if they do that to dull the PC drill in their heads in order to get laid, to get a bf. It's an interesting question.
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 12:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I made no error. I was clear in what I was referencing. If one wants to avoid having sex with a woman *without her consent*, one needs to know what does and does not qualify as consent.
You seem a little hazy on it, but you also don't sound as if English is your first language (not a slight, just feel a slight lilt in your diction), so perhaps the laws are different where you are.
Also a hearty "LOL" to your Ayn Rand reference. If you consider her an authority on absolutely anything, we just disagree fundamentally.
Which is fine. I'm not here to convince anyone, I was only sharing my opinion. Good luck on your classic rape endeavors.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 12:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You would have to read Michel Foucault and Jean Baudrillard to even begin to know what I was writing. You are in the swamp of psychological interpretation which went out in about 1980 in Europe and now continental philosophy rules. American philosophy only remains relevant to the extent that it is familiar with it and redefines the American perspective on it. I read a paper at St Vincent's in MYC last spring on Delillo and all this in Cosmopolis. There are books and papers on Baudrillard and DeLillo. You just haven't read or studied in this field and say uninformed things.
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 1:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dear god, aren't you precious? I didn't say anything uninformed sweetheart and I'm familiar with the schools of thought you're regurgitating. But none of it is related to my point. I prefer linear discussions.
I was talking about rape culture in the US, consent and the average young man's familiarity with what does and does not qualify as consent. You are going off on a *slightly* related tangent that doesn't particularly interest me as I am no longer banging 18- year old libertarian philosophy majors who fall somewhere along the autism spectrum.
I know you're going to continue wanking, but there is no misunderstanding here. We're crystal clear.
Score: 0 (14 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 1:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So you have a ready-made, sound bite acquaintance with post modernism. Good. Continue on with linear into the ever receding horizon as you approach it. Good luck.
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 2:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Man did I ever pick the wrong blog to become addicted to. Oh well, back to the archives.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 3:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's funny to hear men and Autism Spectrum or Lesbian women talk about "women who wear make up". Virtually every woman I pass every day is wearing something. Those who aren't don't appear to be going to work and are generally older than 50. Sheer foundation, properly applied mascara and/or blush, men don't notice those things. Just because a woman's eyelids aren't coated in MAC Greensmoke doesn't mean she isn't wearing "shameful" makeup. The irony here is that you think only women treat makeup as a default. Men do as well. They just don't know it. Unless your significantly changing the colors of your face, they don't notice
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 4:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
as I am no longer banging 18- year old libertarian philosophy majors who fall somewhere along the autism spectrum.
you are funny, I like you
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 4:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Honestly I don't think you read my entire post" you can bet on it
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 6:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Cali,
I'd like the links to the military statistics you cite. 1 in 3 equates to 70,000 per year.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 7:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
No make-up face. Enjoy.
http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/my-mug.html
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 9:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Ugh for fucking once it would be nice to read a TLP post where Alone isn't a total superior, judgmental healthier-than-thou hypocrite. This level of judgment and critique is just a gleaming example of his own unchecked narcissism. It would be an added bonus if, for once, Alone looked in the mirror himself and admitted that he, too, is just as guilty as the rest of us."
"For fucking once"? Sounds like you read quite a bit of his stuff. And as you know, if you're reading it, it's for you.
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 9:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Has anyone ever wondered why mens's suits include shoulder pads that make almost any man look broad shouldered?
Been to the gym lately…???… Not too many guys look remotely the same without the pads. What's up with that? Who are men dressing for?
Probably for the writer of this blog. Everything does eventually circle back to his own desires.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 10:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
repetition Part of Speech: noun Definition: duplication; doing again Synonyms: alliteration, broken record...
As you decline all opportunities to counter my arguments and logic, I am forced to acknowledge that you are effectively conceding that I am correct. You concur thus far?
To concede that I am correct means that both you and I should be doing the repetition thing; you know, until the horrific world that throws acid on the faces of innocent honest girls for being true to their biology learns how to be sane?
So you must be an thrower of acid onto honest girls, then? How does that make you feel, like less of a whore? How ironic. You become religion's and Society's Whore when you feel ashamed to be true to the humane animal you were coded to be.
There is going to be a reckoning for acid-throwing whores at some point. Mark my words. Hands where I can see them please.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 10:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Holy shit, great site and post. One request: please disable the comments so that I don't accidentally read "c.f. Baudrillard's" ever again.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
February 13, 2013 10:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear Alone,
No one is ever going to love you as much as I love you......when i do love you, that is
Raylene
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 7:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's frustrating because I know women could change things for themselves (ourselves).
Breast cancer treatment and prevention has so much funding and attention placed on it because women made that choice, and set up fundraisers and charity walks, etc.
I don't wear makeup because I don't want to, it is not something I am interested in. I know this would hold me back if I ever became a professional or decided to ascend the ladder in my job field, because I don't have a great complexion I "need" makeup.
The only consolation I can bring is that I feel like every woman knows "the rules" and if she chooses to follow them, can achieve anything she wants to achieve. I wonder if men can say the same?
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 9:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree with you, but my point was simply that his world view is probably more influenced by his class than his race. Someone who went to Havard and Yale and travelled the world is going to thing differently than a guy who didn't. So I would class Obama as a rich black guy
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 12:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Probably she was very disliked. And if we're talking high-schoolers these days, the whole thing makes sense. Think of the kids as characters in Lord of the Flies and you'll recognize that every one of those girls hasn't listened to a word an older woman said (if they were going to do anything other than anxiously tell them not to judge others) since they got their first cellphone with text message capability.
Personally, it makes me glad that I never went to parties in high school because I can believe some of the folks in my own town (which wasn't bad) doing this to someone low in the pecking order.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 12:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Also, please nobody read Focault for God's sake. These Post Modern guys - it's just the inside of Clinton's stray remark, 'That depends on what the definition of 'is' is.'
Continential Philosophy, if it's left of Center is either incomprehensible or useless and will be forgotten like the scattering of sophists that used to be paid to tell people what they wanted to hear. Nietzche is worth reading I guess, but if you understand him everyone 'after' him in Continental philosophy has already been explained and is now obsolete.
Finally power still exists, Focault is full of crap. It may have indeed in most cases become a mere show and no longer in truth what it was, but let's face it, that's not some systemic conspiracy it's just people not using their power.
Now get out there and stop reading blogs.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 1:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You dont have to be a gay woman or a straight man to not wear make-up. I am straight and don't wear make up. For the reason that, um, when I tried to, I was like, why am I poking my eyes with pencils? Also, when you have stuff on your skin, you feel it. And you need to do special things when you eat to avoid messing up your lipstick, or reapplying it after eating. It was clear to me that this bullshit isn't worth it, somehow, but then again, being an ugly teen, make-up didnt make a lot of difference and also my mom didn't push me to doll up because she didnt care, and I never had a lot of friends who could teach me how to apply it. So I guess I was lucky to miss this period of a teenage girl's life where you learn to get used to make-up and start believing that investing 1-2 hours to paint your face every day is a reasonable & rewarding thing to do.
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 5:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's been a month... is Alone still alive?
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 8:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
...perhaps he has realized what a poor writer he is, and, suddenly struck with the realization that his writing is an expression of his contempt for the very people he imagines he is helping, has decided to shut his mouth.
Admittedly this is unlikely, in the same sense that narcissists are unlikely to ever seek real help, but it is always a possibility. I take the silence of this poor creature to be a very hopeful sign.
Score: -9 (13 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 9:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
TLP sorta says "Real Power let's the wannabes in, but not until it moved itself somewhere else. In the future, Real Power will have moved to a place that looks like X to us today. Where/what do you think X is?"
Firstly: "I am a software dev...software devs are the anti-man culture." Ouch. That's a bit out-dated...and, are you happy in your job, man?
The "anti-man culture" has changed face and grown into an acceptable expression of manliness so much that nowadays it could serve as another case-study for TLP's thesis. There's /b/tards, indie softdev companies, Big-Bang-Theory-curious viewers, people who have guy fawkes masks and know why, anyone who knows wtf afk tpb means, 8-bit musicians. A whole world of nerdgastic, code compiling wonder out there, where, if you are an idea generator, you are a winning mathlete and can have your man-card.
And gaming development, which used to be woosy, then became the be-all-and-end-all, is now collapsing (from an employment perspective). Yet take any 10 random 13yo boys, ask them what career they want, and 12 of them will say "I wanna make computer games like Notch does." Meanwhile Notch is already on top, and the gaming codemonkeys get paid less than hairdressers these days (if they're lucky to have a paid job).
Anyway, in my town in the 80s, this was a fair predictor of university enrolment (followed by job-of-choice): can you get "Hello World" to cascade across your tv screen in rainbow colours using your Vic20 and cassette cartridge?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 11:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Obama stayed with his grandmother who worked in a bank. Not wealthy. His grandfather was a kind of attractive, good fellow, lots of personality, no success in life. Shallow I would say. Obama went to a private school with whites. Then after that education he went to a community college. Strange. Not very indicative of a high level of academic achievement. He was sort of pudgy then, smoked cigarettes and still is a nicotine addict. Then he goes to was it NYU on affirmative action I guess and then Harvard Law on the same. He's a pretty guy, or was up until he got in over his head and became Mr. Hope and change.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 14, 2013 11:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Obviously you know nothing about it but seem to want to warn everybody from taking a look at it. Why is that? Anyway if you want to know anything about it I suggest seeing Brad Pitt's recent movie Killing Them Softly. It's all there. An excruciatingly fine and difficult movie to watch. Not a shred of charm or seduction in it. And so very smart.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 15, 2013 11:18 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Speaking of narcissism… (hey, when aren't we?), I thought you might find this high tech iApp startup, with their pathetically sad/hilarious product video:
It's everything you write about, only played out in Live Action!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 15, 2013 11:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You learn something from killing a man. It may be a very important thing, indeed.
But were you better off if you had never learned it?
Focault and his like are an advanced topic in the same way dissecting corpses is an advanced topic. The information will blow your mind but people can live truly fulfilling and enlightened existences without ever having learned it.
But look, if you need to read that stuff to remove the other stuff in your mind, that's cool - I've got a story for you about a lady who swallowed a fly.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 15, 2013 3:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
seymourblogger sure does have a gift for mythology.
Obama as a kind and humble man, made bad by being forced to pursue the office of POTUS for a second term?
Seriously?
Wow. That's some seriously self-blinding narcissism excusing another's caustic narcissism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 15, 2013 3:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Foucault is not "advanced" in anything but confidence gaming, also known as bunco/bunko in piggy parlance.
You can always tell a fake "intellectual" by the way they cite as "impressive thinkers" or "advanced scholars" the very people who are Naked Emperors. Foucault's gift was to create tail-chasing arguments and to be provocative, which in the hands of critical thinkers could be fruitful (where he's provocative) or fertile ground for teaching others (where he's tail-chasing and you can dissect the ouroboros nature of his arguments), but ignoring Foucault entirely leaves one more noggin space to deal with those who actually help you see clearly.
Foucault is like a joke on a joke about academics, he's a double-negative.
So, if you're impressed by Foucault, it's likely you're not the least bit advanced -- not in the noggin power sense, anyway. Being a grifter's victim doesn't really show you to be a genius.
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
February 15, 2013 4:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's incredibly naive to associate the appreciation of a thinker's work with that person's intelligence. It's just plain annoying to make that association with laborious purple prose.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 15, 2013 10:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Not all women put on make up to either "feel better about themselves" (ugly or think they're ugly) or for men. Some do it because they know they're beautiful without it but from time to time it's fun to be beautiful in a different way. Sure, that last group enjoys attractiving men, but that attraction could've been accomplished without the make up. And these group of women know it.
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
February 16, 2013 2:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot?"
what's a Tardis?
Score: -6 (8 votes cast)
February 16, 2013 3:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
yours is a very weird and illogic post, full of references to obscure things (notch? Vic 20? Who cares)
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 16, 2013 11:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"If you follow that the consumer unconsciously understands that his masculinity is approved from the outside, by other people, then Valenti is the very person that the ad is arguing against: "these bitches think you're not a man. We at Busmaster tell you differently. Who are you going to believe?" Hell, I'lI believe a Sleestak before I listen to Jessica Valenti, really, those are my only two choices? The ad had no effect on me; her tweet makes me want to join a militia."
I loved this piece overall, section III was spot on. I selected the above blurb because I see it as such a twisted and telling mess of a problem that lies within all of us (males and females). Is the approval really coming from the outside? The young girl above is "outside" to a man, and I interpreted her comment as a disapproval (as opposed to approval, that is worth clarifying). She is making a jab at "what is masculinity" and arguably masculinity itself. And for a man who acknowledges that "the consumer unconsciously understand that his masculinity is approved from the outside" this is a slam. Then you switch to, but Valenti is the very person it (the ad) is arguing against. So she is outside and considered part of the "other people" who could offer approval and validation, yet at the same time, she is the person that is providing disapproval and the ad is arguing AGAINST ("these bitches think you're not a man. We at Bus[h]master tell you differently"). Think about it. Where is the approval really coming from? (In this paragraph it is the female as the outside/other people, but I could have also selected another paragraph from above regarding makeup where the male is the outside/other people to a female). The validation does NOT ultimately come from the outside, it comes from an unattainable place within ourselves (yes it does come back to narcissism!)
Then you switch to "the ad had no effect on me; her tweet makes me want to join a militia." And for the women in the preceding text regarding makeup, it was something along the lines of "men have no effect on my desire to wear makeup, when I see an ad with flawless women in makeup, I tell myself I want to do it for me (as a non-male, because doing it for a male is wrong)!" Different angles, same way of denying the same thing. We cannot find a way to "feel" the approval or acceptance of ourselves on our own, the means of seeking approval/reacting to disapproval is only a consequence of this, after the fact. "her tweet makes me want to join a militia" and (paraphrasing) "I'm wearing the makeup NOT for men" are the consequence.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 16, 2013 12:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's just plain annoying to make that association with laborious purple prose.
Form chosen for satire value.
Sorry you missed that.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 16, 2013 2:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The problem with the original post is that the writer is not wholly aware of post modern thinking on this. Judith Butler has written the most on Gender Trouble, as she has asserted that gender, not sex, is socially constructed. And at this moment in time the boundaries are very porous. Even the "suit" man is confusing as are women to men and to themselves. Well, that just means we are in flux about this issue. And the post on makeup is just a small part of it and it confuses the issue and acts as a mask that dissembles this lack of masculine or feminine delineated boundary. I find this thread informed but not informed enough which mirrors the post itself.
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
February 16, 2013 8:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I hope you read the thread I was replying to first - I was talking expressly about software engineering and IT as a possible future home for Real Power. Those references are not obscure if you are familiar with, or part of, the demographic. Which is the backstory to my whole point: you can't say software engineering isn't going to be tomorrow's repository of Real Power just because it was nerdsville yesterday. And you certainly can't refute the idea by grizzling that you don't get the references.
Personally, I think computing is where "it's" at today, but "it's" already looking for somewhere else to go.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 17, 2013 2:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's been over a month... I need my fix of TLP!
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
February 17, 2013 6:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
No matter how much Judith Butler writes ("the most" or otherwise) her view is only that of one woman, and from what I've seen, a woman whose gender and sexuality are very fluid -- at least in contrast to historical gender and sex roles. That fluidity gives her maybe a powerful insight, or at least a unique one, but it is no guarantee that she's correct, or that her views have been properly scrutinized for psychological baggage like defensiveness, projection, distortion, blaming others to excuse self, blaming constructs and categories instead of individuals, etc.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
February 17, 2013 6:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
She occupies a prominent place in all post modern feminist thinking and writing. She is difficult to read and learn, yes. Her intention is NOT to be a theorist, to be right, to be hypothesized about, etc. She is being wooed from Berkeley to Columbia so I guess I would assume she is considered a valuable addition to any faculty. She spoke at Occupy Wall Street. Psychological interpretation is part of the old Discourse that is fading away. Stay there if you want but the ship has left the dock.
Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
February 17, 2013 6:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's the whole point of Freudianism, isn't it, that ANYBODY AT ALL can be taken down in this manner, by attributing defensiveness or what have you to their views. These attributions are the way the mainstream defends itself. They are Defensiveness Inc. (and projection).
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 17, 2013 6:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The only way to check one's psychological defenses, to know how deep they are, and to be rid of them for moments at a time, is by "facing death":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNXZGkrTIU
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 17, 2013 6:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. It's the Dominating Discourse Foucault discusses. Masculine thinking whether one is sexed male or female.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
February 17, 2013 10:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Not a fan of part 1. The concept of the mirror is one of the most important factors in self-awareness and identity. Feedback is a major tool for building the self. The outward does in fact turn inward, whether we like it or not.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 18, 2013 9:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
With respect, the science seems to disagree with her to a degree. They've done studies and shown that boys tend to prefer "actiony" toys (like balls) and girls tend to prefer calmer toys (more like dolls). And these are two year olds who don't have much cultural training yet. The same thing has been found in monkeys, most of which have never been exposed to human cultures. Even if you start looking at cultures around the world, even before widespread westernization, you find that women and men occupy similar roles no matter where they live. To say that women have to be trained to like nuturing roles and men have to be trained to like hunting roles doesn't match up with reality.
Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
February 18, 2013 9:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
abbeysbooks seems to think reality is defined by a popularity contest and colored by faddish trends.
I guess that's a good perspective if you don't like the reality that is, and prefer the "reality" you conjure in your mind as a smokescreen to avoid dealing with life as it is.
Apparently abbeysbooks hasn't noticed that American culture circa 2013 is pure Stuff White People Like, where being gay/lesbian/ambisexual = expertise on everything, where any minority status = proof of wisdom. It's cartoony, this stuff. The Judity Butler crap I've read hasn't been useful for anything other than trying to suggest that sexuality and gender are fluid, and that is useful for the 8% of humans who are gender-confused or sexuality-confused, I guess, but what's the point?
Other than trendiness and smokescreens against reality, I mean?
Oh, sorry. Is this too "reactionary" for you PBS/NPR dimwits?
Thumbnail: Judith Butler's personal experience as a hyper-butch lesbian isn't a source of "truth" about anything but Judith Butler's experience as a hyper-butch lesbian.
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
February 18, 2013 10:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Psychological interpretation is part of the old Discourse that is fading away. Stay there if you want but the ship has left the dock.
So, our Hostess also comments as "abbeysbooks." How cute.
You can choose to be "post-psychology" if you wish, if that's how you rail against the C you got in 11th grade from that teacher who didn't find eidetic memory as useful as reasoning skills, if you like that sort of escapism. Apparently you do.
The psychological landscape of a human is where gender and sexual identity are formed, "abbey", so you can ignore that if you like, but you are ignoring just about everything there is on this topic you pretend to care so deeply about.
That's hilariously ironic, enough to make me bust a gut.
Judith Butler is a Naked Empress, and "abbeysbooks" is busy complimenting her on her fancy new robes. Good job, toadstool! Well praised, sycophant!
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 18, 2013 12:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Gee Dan, I suggest you get in touch with Berkeley and Columbia universities immediately so they can partake of your wisdom. I am sure after listening to you they will find some way to terminate her tenure at Berkeley and Coluumbia will rescind their offers to her. You might even get a hefty consultant fee out of it. Go get 'em boy!
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 18, 2013 12:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't write these blog posts. They aren't "me", as my thinking is much different.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 19, 2013 12:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dan, stop rocking the boat
Think of yourself as being in the middle of a mental institution --
Choose your words carefully!
I agree that being post-psychology is a little silly. Psychology is actually not as young as some might assume, though certainly as it is practiced now (much like W. medicine) it is 'young'. But things like narcissism and the like have been being dealt with as psychological problems for many centuries. You just need to look in the right place to find the 'diagnoses' and 'treatments' if you will.
As for the 'stuff white people like' comment, one of the ironies of PoMo is that the very nature of the way of thinking entails that when it looks like it is the most hated thing it is the most dominant thing. PoMo is couched in negative absolutes; and like Gangsta Rap the 'hatin' is part of the system, and perhaps the most important part of the system. Who would know a thing about Gangsta rap (or care) if it wasn't so disliked? I would know maybe Wu Tang Clan and Busta Rhymes (because they're funny) and that's about it. I think the author was making a point somewhat to this effect about Hipsters - that the point (essentially) is to hate the hipsters. This is permitted in the context that hating the hipsters does not actually entail committing acts of violence against them (though I can't be completely sure about that) but simply seething on [conservative/liberal] [blogs/comboxes/parties/church suppers] about them.
When I played organ for a black church in the city, an inordinate amount of time was spent attacking gangster culture - the baggy pants, the dropout attitude, the rap, etc. I don't blame them for this but later realized that Rap plays the PoMo game (but doesn't believe in it) and survives in the PoMo cultural world in this way. They were part of the system of propagating black gangster culture in antagonizing it, or if no-one there had anything to do with it, preaching to the choir. The point is that hating rap keeps people caring about rap, and gives rap its 'edge'.
To be honest I was just playing there because I got paid for spending 2 hours on sunday morning playing a b3 + leslie with a good bassist and drummer... and when the preacher got worked up, mercy, mercy! I say all of this unironically; I am psychologically incapable of being ironic about music.
In all fairness I should never have provoked abbeysbooks - attacking Focault is part of the system of Focault. Focault wants you to hate him; like Stewart Home he's trying to get a reaction out of you - he's assaulting you! (In Focault's case, that word could have an added hyphen for some pun-related fun.)
If 'shame is the desired result', then that stupid meme 'First World Problems' is at least mostly explained ... as much as 'the mystery of iniquity' can be.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 19, 2013 1:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Love you. Just wanted you to be sure I mean it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 19, 2013 2:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ha ha ha! Perfect.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 19, 2013 6:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you going somewhere? People always say that when they are leaving.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 19, 2013 6:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually, the thinkers from whom "postmodernists" derive their ideas are very far removed from contemporary postmodernism, in their drives, sense of what the problems were, and the solutions they proposed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLFvsip-WA
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 19, 2013 8:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There is so much in this blog post that my head hasn't completely stopped spinning, but I'll try my best to leave a sensible comment. I am a woman who enjoys this blog immensely, and I'm surely a minority when it comes to feminism because I am convinced it has damaged the primitive and biological relations between men and women. Men and women are forced to compete for careers, parking spaces, and in ways that are not proper to the natural order. Women whine they can't find a good man who makes them feel loved, secure, protected....well, of course you can't since our fore-mothers bitched-up everything by forcing feminism down our throats. We've got both parents working, children feeling ignored and acting out, and people pumped up on anti-depressants or serotonin reuptake inhibitors that "may cause suicidal feelings or odd behavior." The family unit has been altered. People are overworked, over-taxed, and can't cope with their own lives....and yet you wonder how in the world women (and men) in a town did not stop the rape of a drunk young woman? I am not saying feminisim is to blame for all of this, but people are self-centered because it is the only way to survive in this American economic and social climate.
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
February 19, 2013 10:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree with you. As Baudrillard says, "Women are liberated, but they are no longer free."
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 19, 2013 10:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Go on. Don't stop here.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 3:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As Baudrillard says, "Women are liberated, but they are no longer free."
Have any of you seen Rogers & Hammerstein's Sound of Music. Wholesome family entertainment, right?
This world needs brighter minds than it's produced thus far. That movie is sick, rotten, filthy Catholic propaganda. Let me give you some examples:
"How do you solve a problem like Maria?"
First, you have to define the problem. Was the problem the fact that she was a girl who enjoyed sex? That's what the nuns and the Mother Superior certainly believed. But that doesn't make Maria a problem. That's just biology.
Maria was a problem, a huge problem in fact. Dear sweet Maria was a sociopath; a little bit like Narcissus'' mother Liriope (if you think about it).
TIL from "Sound of Music" how to be a sociopath like Maria. When the Von Trapp kids are terrified of thunder; Maria has a genuine dilemma; one which lies at the very core of the Toddler Condition (we have not been conditioned to be humane, the Human Condition is sociopathic self-defeating and insane).
Maria could:
a) Educate their irrational fears of a generic meteorological event away for ever; or...
b) Start managing their ongoing terror by providing temporary relief.
Now I'm not criticising Maria for her sociopathic choosing of b). Women are given this option all the time; be humane and die v be sociopath and survive. All the humans who would have chosen a) are dead, having been bred out. Only the weak survive. Natural selection has been corrupted by religious misogyny. With nothing to offer but her worthless emotions and love, Maria doesn't actually provide anything of value to the von Trapp family. Sure, she provided joy. Right. And casinos provide an entertainment experience.
Maria, like every mother with nothing to offer, had to carve herself a role or she'd have been discarded. Humans are conditioned to shoot themselves in the foot and only reward those who make us suffer routinely so that they might provide us with (temporary) pain relief.
Sociopaths say "THINK POSITIVE". Only a sociopath ever says this. A human says, "Think accurately." One is a lie that will make you exploitable. The other is sanity that will protect you from Those Who Will Make You Suffer In Order To Relieve Your Pain.
Like the Church. Or the State. Parents. Friends. Family. The medical industry. Every industry. Marketing. Advertising. The entire world is inflicting suffering in order to provide pain relief. There are two problems with this:
1. It's not happiness.
2. Not everyone can afford the relief.
It's possible I have personally met and been treated by The Last Physician. Over the period of a year, I had lost the use of my wrists to excruciating pain (RSI). I was on the brink of suicide because I could not sleep. The pain was indescribable. I was receiving the finest medical attention money can buy in the First World - I spent something like $42,000 on the finest medical professionals in a city of 3 million. The physios kept strapping my wrists tighter and tighter, the surgeons kept booking me into theater for operations to slice open my carpals because they Knew I had carpal tunnel syndrome. I had no reason to doubt them; I'm merely terrified of operations and the success rate for that operation is less than 50% and you lose all use of your wrists / hands / forearms for 6-8 months. I missed two theater appointments out of blind fear.
One day, trying not to scream (on account of being in public) I walked past a tiny little shopfront in the middle of the expensive inner-city suburb where I lived a fairly miserable existence (even before the insane chronic pain). I was wealthy, but money cannot buy you happiness. It will merely make you a target for sociopaths and their screaming needy and lies and misery. Inside the shopfront (which was signed something like "Physio-Chiro-Therapeutic Holistic Health" or something ridiculously hippy-sounding like that), I saw a stunning little blonde girl and I walked in for that reason (distraction). I had no reason to believe she could succeed where the finest medical minds in the country could not. I told her my story and she grimaced; not at my pain, but at the parts where I described the treatment I was receiving. When I told her I wasn't going to miss the third theater appointment, she interrupted me, shutting me up.
"Give me three weeks," she told me. I didn't really want to, what was the point? I said the surgery was booked for the following week, i.e. "No."
"GIVE ME THREE WEEKS," she shouted, startling me. Stunned, I said, ""Okay?"
She didn't need three weeks. I didn't have carpal tunnel syndrome. I didn't need strapping. The strapping had caused my wrist stabilising muscles to atrophy. I needed to build them up, strengthen them, not weaken them. The physio was murdering me. He would have been an exceptional mother (by this demented world's understanding of childcare). She gave me exercises, which I completed religiously. This is a very emotionally traumatic story for me to tell because I was on the brink of death; the pain was indescribable.
She didn't need three weeks. 90% of the pain was gone after a fortnight. Ecstatic, I bounced into her clinic for an appointment at the start of Week 3. She checked my progress and evicted me from her clinic. She said, "There is nothing more that I can do for you. Save your money. Stick with the exercises and you'll have a complete recovery."
Five weeks after I walked into her little clinic because she was cute, the physician had given me a 100% recovery. This was six years ago. I haven't had an RSI flareup since. I was a professional poker player, and without the pain, I rapidly improved and moved overseas for reasons directly related to my capacity to think clearly, unafflicted by pain. My friends had all been managing my pain for me like Maria managed the von Trapp family's terror of thunder. They'd been doing it for a decade.
The point of my story is the saddest part, which happened when I returned home after a couple years. I was a millionaire and I never forgot the angelic physician who saved me from blood-thirsty sociopathic surgeons and murderous sociopathic physiotherapists. I didn't know how I was going to do it but I wanted to somehow express my gratitude. She'd charged me $135 in total. I wanted to give her $50,000 or something just to say "Thanks." I knew it would be nearly impossible to convince her to take the money and I was calculating how I was going to finagle it when I realised I couldn't find her clinic. I walked up and down the street four times before realising her shopfront of healing was gone; replaced by some store selling $250 T-shirts and $400 Tsubi jeans stitched by children in Vietnam no doubt.
She'd gone bankrupt because she was a physician and we live in a world where rent prices in the area I found her (and I wouldn't have found her in the sticks) run at $5-10,000 / month rental fees. She charged me $135. She went bankrupt because decency cannot compete in this world of imbeciles who incentivise their own suffering. There is no money in cures or in permanent solutions. All the money is in managing ongoing chronic pain and suffering. We don't imagine we need those who heal us. We imagine we need those who make our pain go away but we're too stupid to question why our relief is only ever temporary or why we are even suffering in the first place and no one - literally none of you - are bright enough to even consider whether or not there are conflicts-of-interest in play.
Fuck it. You all need to die. You're too stupid to be living and your ignorance is a liability killing 30,000 children under the age of five every single day. And on top of it all, you're breeding in your miserable denial and lying to your children for their sake (of course). Narcissus understood you horrifying sociopathic needy beasts. Narcissus was a Hero. A true god among vermin needy creeps who scream brain-freezing, terrifying echoes when their unsolicited impositions are rejected. This is one of the most important stories you'll ever read in your life and you won't get it. TLDR. You're just too stupid to warrant being kept alive.
So you make all your children as stupid as you are with your filthy love and dependence-forming lies. They need you like a promiscuous teenage girl needs AIDS. The analogy is perfect. If you're confused, it's the victims who get blamed for their victimization.
You all need to die. I wish I was humane enough to make that happen for you.
Ignorant, illiterate, retarded sociopaths are a few of my least favourite things.
Score: 1 (13 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 4:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpfOtyu8GC0
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 7:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you have to make that rant again : saying that you don't blame someone for making a choice then saying you blame them for making that choice then saying that the victims are imbeciles who icentivize their own suffering then saying we shouldn't blame the victims then saying everyone should die makes you sound like you're very confused about how you feel. Not what you want if your goal is to educate people.
Besides, everything you describe in your story and analysis is pretty much standard to people who read this blog, it's been talked about by Alone a bunch over the years. Everyone here that you vent at/try and educate (which is it ?) probably knows about the fact people can be willing to help and then trick themselves into thinking they're helping even as the price to pay is being part of the problem. We know how someone can want help and then enjoy being helped more than they think they'd enjoy being cured. We know how psychological phenomenon like these can manifest themselves in a society, how they can crystallize and create a self-perpetuating system in which everyone is a victim and no one is responsible anymore.
But then... You mention that Narcissus thing and give no explanation at all ! What the fuck dude ? you didn't think that was relevant to the context of this freaking blog about freaking narcissism ?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 9:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You should go find that girl and marry her, doofus. If she is that good, as you say she is. Because you still need plenty of help. PLENTY. You need so much help, you don't have any idea. Also, if you marry her, eventually you can pay her back for whatever good things she does. Duh. Try not to screw it up. Try hard.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 9:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
pics or it didn't happen.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 12:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see you still believe the camera doesn't lie. Go see Kurosawa's Rashomon.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 12:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not sure what this has to do with my comment on Baudrillard, exceept that Baudrillard follows Nietzsche. Your rant follows the style and hyperbole of Hesse BTW.
Everything you say is accurate but the ranting language you use defeats your communication of it. Correct that: read Foucault's Madness and Civilization and his oral Lectures on Abnormal at the College de France in 1974-75. Every thing you said will be validated but structured in such a way that it cannot be refuted. His oral lectures are much more accessible to the masses than his writings, altho his prose is so beautiful, so elegant, so inescapable that he had been criticized for it. For starters you might reread Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 12:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes the language used is that of the "schizophrenicgenic mother" who asserts and denies at the same time. She will urge her child to come to her while at the same time she leans back to signal don't come to me. Obviously jonny had this kind of mother and has internalized his "mother's tongue". Lacan could teach alone a whole lot more and so could Foucault and Baudrillard not to mention Deleuze.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 1:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Seeing how you have not read Foucault, Baudrillard or Deleuze altho you may have some ready-made sound bites in your head, you cannot know what I was saying. These references must be studied and studied carefully and then you too will become aware. jonny is aware and is torturing himself with it. All family is about enforcing "normality" at a microscopic level. The family as important unit intersects with the rise of capitalism, the need for a working and consuming biopolitics. Biopolitics is also carefully described by Foucault and is an independent study now in human behavior and certainly a major part in new economics, the importance of the "human" in the labor market. We are not talking about "human rights" here, but the preservation of the internal skill of the worker as the worker's "capital".
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 1:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
saying that you don't blame someone for making a choice then saying you blame them for making that choice then saying that the victims are imbeciles who icentivize their own suffering then saying we shouldn't blame the victims then saying everyone should die makes you sound like you're very confused about how you feel. Not what you want if your goal is to educate people.
Educate people? Educate? How can you be educated when all you want to do is throw acid at girls who are honest and not as conformist and cowardly and conniving and controlled as you? I'm not confused at all; you imbeciles are simply illiterate.
I don't blame Maria because she grew up in a world of acid-throwing vermin. In her position, I would have educated and taken the penalty; it's what I've done my entire life. I don't play Blame Games; you filthy women and sons of filthy women - that's your demented preferred pastime. I'm explaining why it's all fucked up and how easily it can all be fixed but you don't want to be sane. You want to throw the acid. So die in your acid-fights for all I care; just stop breeding children in the meantime. That's crossing the fucking line.
The problem is as simple as you. Remove your needy from the picture and the picture will be worth looking at again. You = Anyone who needs to lie. Anyone who needs to corrupt the minds of children. Anyone who asserts that having fun without hurting anyone is wrong or immoral or a sin. Anyone who is that needy needs to die. It's that simple. Why are you intentionally trying to conflate it all into something complex?
You're all sociopaths bullying children. You're the lowest form of life that exists.
Everyone here that you vent at/try and educate (which is it ?) probably knows about the fact people can be willing to help and then trick themselves into thinking they're helping even as the price to pay is being part of the problem. We know how someone can want help and then enjoy being helped more than they think they'd enjoy being cured. We know how psychological phenomenon like these can manifest themselves in a society, how they can crystallize and create a self-perpetuating system in which everyone is a victim and no one is responsible anymore.
What babbling gobble-dock are you...I'm not talking about any of that incoherent dribble you just babbled. I'm talking about sociopaths profiting from suffering and decency being unable to compete because you're all so fucking stupid you reward those who lie to you and make you suffer and you never value those who tell you the truth and cure you without histrionics and drama and fanfare.
I'm talking about the polar ice cap melting right through. It's gone. Nothing can save it now. Greenland is going to follow. Nothing can stop that from happening now. Water levels are going to rise by 6-7 metres. This is what's going to happen now. Billions are going to die.
THIS IS ALL HAPPENING NOW.
You imbeciles with your pathetic book-learned educations and your circle-jerking over minds less intelligent than a cunning girl running game in the most lethal of all predatory environments (Bangkok's illegal under-age sex industry) have no fucking clue about the world. You live in your tiny little bubbles ensconced in your delusions that you're in control, that you're going places, that you're on track, that everything is going to work out for you if you tick your stupid fucking boxes and suck the right fucking cocks and brown-nose the right grandson of some fucking....
I can't. You're too stupid to educate. I can't. The Answer is as simple as Truth. You're not interested. The Answer is as simple as preventing needy sociopaths from breeding slaves like Liriope bred Narcissus to be hers. You're not interested. The Answer is as simple as instant termination of existence for anyone guilty of throwing acid at girls (real or virtual). Just kill them. Call a girl a slut, instant death. No fucking around any more on this demented sleazy shit. The answer is as simple as walking into every psychaitrist's office in the world and asking them a set of questions I can give you which they cannot answer without convicting themselves, then string them up in the lobby and have hospital cleaners sanitise the area for the business of healing to recommence tomorrow.
Anyone found guilty of conflict-of-interests, string them up. The time for games is over. Do you want to die or live. You listen to me you have a chance. Ignore me you're all dead within your lifetimes. You don't have my mind. I don't need to speak your language to be right. I'm right.
But then... You mention that Narcissus thing and give no explanation at all ! What the fuck dude ? you didn't think that was relevant to the context of this freaking blog about freaking narcissism ?
Explanation? Do you read this blog at all? Do you know the alias of the writer who writes this blog? Did you read his story about Narcissus and Liriope and Echo and Tireseus and Zeus and Hera? Are you able to be educated?
I don't think you have the capacity. This world is divided up into two kinds of people;
1. The needy.
2. Those who do not need to lie, manipulate, steal, cheat, corrupt, pollute, game, deceive, molest, murder and brainwash children.
Narcissus was in the first group. As am I. I finally worked out why Alone is called Alone. If you need anything in this world, the sycophants leverage that need against you and make you pay for that mistake. There is only one option. Narcissus understood. Alone understood. Now I understand.
The vast majority of you are in the second group. Everyone in the second group needs to die.
Simple enough for you?
Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 1:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You should go find that girl and marry her, doofus. If she is that good, as you say she is. Because you still need plenty of help. PLENTY. You need so much help, you don't have any idea. Also, if you marry her, eventually you can pay her back for whatever good things she does. Duh. Try not to screw it up. Try hard.
Hey doofus. I don't marry. I'm not deranged enough to need a contract for...? To bind someone by my side when they don't want to know me? To bind me to someone's side when I don't want to know them? Yeah see that shit is really dumb. And sociopaths who cannot comprehend the sanctity of free will, consent, unadulterated choice and the importance of Self wouldn't be expected to understand.
You clearly have a problem with reading comprehension because she's a gifted physician in a specific field of medicine I clearly stated I no longer require her services for, courtesy of her being humane in a world of sleazy vermin scum.
You're just babbling insane exploited women's insanity. Go throw some acid on your daughter and get her ready to be a good Christian whore in time for the next Purity Ball.
Don't let her have sex though cause then her life will be ruined and she will be worth NOTHING. Fucking creeps. You all need to be put down.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 2:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Given that postmodernism is wholly derivative just like essentially any critique (Marx included) or system that is based on a critique, why this should be revelatory or worth making a comment of is beyond me. Marx may have drawn from Plotinus, but that didn't make Marx a reaction to Attic or Roman Greece. Or to put it another way, the idea of reification may be older than Marx, but it is Marx's reification and those whose studied and built off him that we deal with. Same for the postmodernists. "There is nothing new under the sun" -- yes -- but that does not transform postmodernism into something other than what it is. You can express it in the terms of its parts but it still remains what it is and what it is a response to. I can come up with a thousand analogies to demonstrate this, but if you're digging the PoMo have at it; I won't 'critique' you a word beyond this... there are other things to do than critique.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 2:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This place became an oasis for pseudo-intellectuals (a.k.a., grad students spending too much time on the internet, and doing less real research). Never saw so much name dropping and misreadings in the comments section of a blog before... folks, get back to your research, disconnect a bit and go do some in-depth reading! Stop throwing Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Foucault, Baudrillard around, as if you actually read their works.
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 2:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Puppylander, pics of what? I have no need for lies. Only liars cannot verify.
__________________________
Not sure what this has to do with my comment on Baudrillard
I wasn't commenting on Baudrillard but on what he said. I have no interest in personalities unless they're saying saying truthful and then I'm really only going to be interested in that.
He said women are liberated but they are no longer free. This is very true. I gave an example of one such woman, a convent girl named Maria. Liberated but not free because no one will ever be free in a world where acid is used to force misery (of the kind that forces humans to deny their humanity and their biology.). I then segued into a story showing how we have all been liberated but none of us are free. Our insanity is our chains that bind us to our misery.
I don't care about Nietzsche and Hesse. I do like Nietzsche but he told me nothing I didn't know already and he made the mistake of getting down into the gutter to communicate with the gutter rats. Everyone makes this mistake.
Everything you say is accurate but the ranting language you use defeats your communication of it. Correct that: read Foucault's Madness and Civilization and his oral Lectures on Abnormal at the College de France in 1974-75. Every thing you said will be validated but structured in such a way that it cannot be refuted.
I'm not looking for validation. I know what is true. The year is 2013. 38 years ago, a man lectured in a way that cannot be refuted. This is what you say. I have no reason to doubt you.
Except if what you say is true, why are we having this conversation 38 years later? The masses don't want to be accessed. They want to rape their own. To breed slaves to break-in like farm animals and use as servants in their old age.
The time for prose has passed. The time for everything has passed. I doubt there is time for anything now, but whether or not I am correct has no bearing on the fact that there has always only been time for truth. This is truth. If you want it in another style or format, you're part of the problem.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 2:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jon & Raylene
I think everyone in both groups is going to die anyway, so what's the point? Seething in a combox has a utility limited perhaps to catharsis.
jon, the point of marriage is self-transcendence. There's really no other reason for it other than necessities regarding the protection of women and children. If you are bound to that other person you must sacrifice your own will for theirs - which works a lot better if both will play the game. Marriage is the foundation of human society, and usually the worse a society the worse its marriages are, like a bad building made of cracked stones.
If you are only interested in untrammeled self will, then you are going to be disappointed; as a human being you're not made for that. You're made to serve. The pagans understood this and so did the Christians. If you serve no-one, then you simply become ignorant of whom you serve. Or, as the blog seems to demonstrate, you serve the Zeitgeist willingly while being completely ignorant of doing it service; thus it's like a man who has employees that don't know they're employed so he doesn't have to pay them.
I think some of the post-modernists went down that path - the ultimate act of self-assertion is suicide: If you cannot self-determine your existence (nobody but God can) then the only thing you can do is terminate it with an act of your will. We do not have self-existence however, and given the history of metaphysics it seems unlikely that suicide will end anything permanently.
Of course, as a Greek bishop wrote some time ago, there is a way to assert self-existence; It's the answer to Nicodemus' question, "How can a man enter again his mother's womb?" A second birth.
Anyhow, I'm a religious nut. Nice to meet you.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 2:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So which is worse: glossing Focault or reading Focault?
Or to put it another way, if the Pelagians weren't really reading Pelagius correctly, was Augustine wrong in misreading him in the same way in his polemic?
Don Colacho has an aphorism about this somewhere. If the common understanding of any of these authors matched precisely how they are to be interpreted (or is that reverse-interpreted? I can never tell) then it would be apropos to require reading them before commenting.
So I guess maybe if every anti-semite is really a philo-semite most of us reading the works is kind of pointless; we won't get it anyway.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 2:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is a difference between chit-chat on the web, and spending some time with an author, letting thoughts marinate, doing some deep reflection. What happens here is a rushed interpretation, poor writing, name-dropping, a battle of egos. Seriously, folks. Shut your computer off and spend more time at the library.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 2:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Look I agree. The world is doomed. It is going to have to completely implode on itself. A few will be left. Maybe. I recently saw Chasing Ice, the man who planted the cameras to record the melting over the time of a few years. Diane Burko whom I have known for decades painted paintings of these glaciers long ago and unwittingly turned into a witness for history. Her recent paintings show the awful change. In the film Chasing Ice I was horrified just like everyone else. But cursed with the ability to see other sides I also saw it through entrepreneur eyes. Do you know about the super rich agricultural soil of Wisconsin, once under glaciers in time past. I do. So there I was looking at new rich land the ice had melted off and I saw with greedy eyes. Virgin land. Gold, diamonds, oil and it is going to be astonishingly rich and all nations are going to fight over exploiting it. So in uncovering the travesty of global warming, putting it in your face for all deniers, it advertised the fantastic advantages it will have for exploitation. This is the kind of thinking post modernism prepares you for. Better have left the melting glaciers alone.Always a double-edged sword.Inescapable. This is Foucault.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 3:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry but you show no understanding of post modernism. Actually Deleuze is providing radical theologists with the intellectual ideas they need right now.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 3:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think about 9 months 24/7 with Foucault and another year of the same with Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc is what you are saying about reading and contemplating. I presented a paper on DeLillo at St. Vincent's U last April and I was appalled by the lack of understanding by the careerists that were there. A couple of young Eastern European grad students were the only ones who demonstrated that. I will go to hear Clayton Crockett at Drury U in April and maybe present there, but I doubt you know that Crockett is a radical theologian and a very informed post modern reader and writer.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 3:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's a site for you jonny where you will feel right at home: http://guattaricomplex.blogspot.fr/
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why would you think less of me for knowing Clayton Crockett or not?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 5:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
lmao, an idiot millionaire who can't manage a simple ailment without a girl yelling at him. never change, internet.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 5:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
funny that the comment section on tlp doesn't differ from that anywhere else on the web, the narcissism just festers
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 5:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, please release another essay. When you leave it too long between them the philosophy majors start to play with themselves.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 6:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Judging by the volume and the VOLUME of these comments it's clear the natives are getting restless. TLP please put the drink down and write some more, you know how narcissists hate to be ignored!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM64Y8ndyG4
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 7:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did I say I would think less of you if you knew or didn't know Crockett. It's just that post modern thinking has an anti theological taint and that's just not true. In fact it is the cutting edge of radical theological thinking. You did say you were religious didn't you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 7:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I hope you are not including me on this. I have read them all. Very seriously. Very.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 8:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You must think I am someone else.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 8:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's possible. Sorry if I did.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 9:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not following the "they were liberated but they're no longer free" thing. If they are not free, they were never really liberated. You cannot liberate someone into slavery, either they become free or they were not liberated. rearranging slave row is not liberation.
And I do agree at least for humans that live in a civilization (hunter gatherers may have a different experience of the world than we do). To some degree it's required to have a civilization. If everyone lives the lifestyle of Anton LeVay (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey), there could be very little in the way of civilization. even such things as getting food to a grocery requires the coordinated activity of a thousand individuals some with power, some with less power, some with no power. The guy who owns the store gets to tell the people who work there when and how to work. The guy who owns the field decides what to plant, and he gets to tell the field hands exactly how to tend and harvest his crop. Without that, we go back to essential hunter gatherer status.
I don't see much of value in philosphy. I admit to having a bit of curiosity about it, but the problem with any philosophy is that it doesn't really match reality in a rubber-meets-road kind of way. Sure nietsche can tell you about being an ubermensche who transends his nature to be moral without morality, but it doesn't tell you how to live in a world in which such a thing has happened or what would happen in a world that had such a man. It can give whole treatises on the idea that life may be unreal in some way (the matrix idea is the current fashion), but what does it matter? Why does it matter what we live in? Whether the Simulation exists or not, my rent is still due.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 20, 2013 10:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Clearly you don't have much truck with philosophy. It shows. Only slaves can be freed. Women have undergone "liberation" (I did not say freed) and now a woman cannot say no. If a young girl does not put out by the 3rd date she gets told by the would be bf that he's moving on. So the young girl cannot say no as repression no longer exists. It is just something that was sold to girls. So she has to decide wether she wants to date (and put out) or be a wallflower. She isn't free the way we used to be. But by god, she is liberated.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 6:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Look I agree. The world is doomed. It is going to have to completely implode on itself. A few will be left. Maybe.
Yes. What will be will be. But the vermin are breeding children for the Apocalypse. I grew up in one of the most notorious child exploitation cults of the 20th century and it took me a decade of denial before I accepted they were just representative of this pathetic species of vermin liars and self-defeating, emotionally-corrupted and reduced - omg are they reduced - tiny, petty, cowardly, predatory 'humans' preying on children.
Do you know about the super rich agricultural soil of Wisconsin, once under glaciers in time past. I do. So there I was looking at new rich land the ice had melted off and I saw with greedy eyes. Virgin land. Gold, diamonds, oil and it is going to be astonishingly rich and all nations are going to fight over exploiting it. So in uncovering the travesty of global warming, putting it in your face for all deniers, it advertised the fantastic advantages it will have for exploitation.
Of course I am aware of these things. Can you do motive? The polar ice cap is melting at astonishing rates as Shell and British Petroleum fall over themselves to capitalise and I'm the only one who can connect the dots on why it's melting so quickly?
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 7:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
using the word mensch in connection with nietzsche is really offensive. I am not explaining why, look it up, figure it out. God. Anton le Vey lived in a house, had a girlfriend- i don't think they married- ate out, had a helper around teh house, I have no idea why you'd say anything about civilization and anton. He even up and died like everyone else. Many of his ideas came from his first wife anyway- the one he screwed over, cheated on, and then divorced, perhaps another very common piece of civilization. Oh I forgot- had children with, screwed over, and then divorced. Anton just talks a good game, probably easier than having a real job. It's a wonder given all that contrarian spirit back in the 60s and 70s he couldn't just stay married, take care of his kids, and live like a normal person, but i guess he couldn't.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 9:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
P: pics or it didn't happen.
A: I see you still believe the camera doesn't lie. Go see Kurosawa's Rashomon.
P: no, child. (this expression "pics or it didn't happen" is just a joke [internet meme]. not meant to express actual trust in images, rather a skepticism of johnny's claim of being a millionaire numbskull.)
A: foucault blah foucault blah foucault [best lisa simpson impression].
child, i was once like you. stop worshipping and start philosophizing. better yet, stop philosophizing and start living.
you've posted too much on this thread. (and at the same time, posted nothing at all--it's the same line "i'd suck foucault's dick" rephrased fifteen ways to sunday.)
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 9:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And no, we should not stop trading with countries whose leaders treat their people poorly. We are defeating those bastards already. (If I may permit myself to defend the "System" for a bit.) Look at the movements in Egypt, Libya, etc. All those kids are wearing hoodies and Adidas and carrying cellphones alongside their AK's, and they probably watch shit like the Kardashians on TV. They have already bought into our system, whether intentionally or not. It is viral, it has infected them, they cannot escape, the dictators are due for a downfall. China might not be so dramatic (I anticipate a more orderly transition) but it is still coming. I have been there, they eat KFC, watch MTV and wear Ralph Lauren. All of their smartest kids come to the US for college and/or grad school, and then go home to lead their industries while carrying with them a heaping dose of capitalism. I honestly cannot see a war ever happening between China and the West because they simply cannot hate us. They have been exposed to us so much and in so many ways, they might not like us, but they cannot hate us.
This badger guy Knows things that are true.
They might not like us.
But they are us. Or they will be, once their masters have brought their conditioning up to speed.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 11:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm talking about the broad strokes of his ideas that a person should think only of themselves 24-7. He wants a society of narcissitic a-holes who are not into doing anything that doesn't benefit them directly. If everyone did that, we'd be back to hunter-gatherer tribes warring on each other.
western civilization will probably die of some self-inflicted wound or another. Most civilizations have. But that means that a lot of stuff won't even be possible. Modern medicine cannot opperate without industry, nor can a modern store. Universal education can only exist in a society stable enough not to have kids pick the crops, so forget literacy for the common man. That's the problem with the philosophy of "do only for yourself" -- you are not an atom in a sea of nothing, you exist in a society that does provide things for you. You can expect to live to 70, and you don't worry about an infected finger killing you. You can read. You can argue that the ideal solution to everything is to act like a wild animal because you are a part of a matrix that protects you from the consequences of such actions.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 12:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
China will not I agree. Capitalism has won and the face of capitalism will be revealed in all its horror when chinese capitalism takes over. There will be no christian tradition to counter it as in the west.
I see you don't know about Ai WeiWei and the documentary on him: Never Say Sorry. He holds off the entire totalitarian chinese govt with twitter. Get to know him. Retweet him. It's what keeps him alive over there. He tells them they create people like him. They put surveillance cameras all over his studio, his home, to watch him. He puts one in his bedroom so they can watch him there. They beg him to take it away but he won't. He is a zen master. He judos them at every turn. They had him in solitary last year for 81 days. His followers tweeted constantly about him, where he was, that he was in prison, that he was being tortured and they finally let him go. It was not a piece of cake for him. He understands what freedom really is. It's not just being about whether I can buy Ralph Lauren or Gap or or or.........Or that I can say crap all the time in free speech on the internet. Ai Wei Wei is giving us the Nietzschean model on how to handle all this: excess and implode it. And mensch used by Nietzsche as ubermensch, the "superman" as the west renamed it, is not Hitler, it is the person who rises above the crap, sees it for what it is, and is driven by their own will to their own power, not domination over another or others. More spinning from the western world to defang Nietzsche. Read DeLillo's cosmopolis, it's all there also.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 12:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well puppylander if its a pic you want or it didn't happen I can fabricate one for you in photoshop that will give you a pic exactly how I want to present it for your edification. Just like those photoshopped pictures of Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders , the "cheating ones you know" the "dry humping ones" by the fence that stormed across the tabloids and the internet this summer and are still being talked about? Those photoshopped pictures.
Oh puppylander you believe if no pics then it didn't happen eh. I guess you are still a virgin then unless you are an amateur porn star, because if no pics of you having sex, then you didn't and are still a virgin. Is that true?
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 12:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ssorry I didn't read far enough before I replied earlier. Forgive me for not getting your irony. As Foucault himself has said, "No theory. Only a toolbox for thinking." He has given us a "toolkit" for thinking: genealogy which he attributes to Nietzsche. Out of the dominating Discourse of the classical Hegelian Dialectic and into a different one. A different way of thinking, speaking and writing. I am trying. How about you?
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 12:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. But go where there are others as outraged as you. You are not the only one who knows all this. Here you are the only one, that's all: go here: http://guattaricomplex.blogspot.fr/
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 1:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you don't have a toolkit, just a hammer.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 2:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well puppylander a hammer is what Nietzsche recommends we take to concepts. So thanks.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 4:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What are you, an addbot that took a BA in philosophy?
...
Whichsomehowmadeyouevenlessvalubletosociety BAM.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
not everything is a nail, child.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 6:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here we go -- a special response to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHC8Kvreut0
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 8:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That was pretty painfully rambling, and I really have no idea what she was trying to say. It seems like she is talking about philosophy like its a sort of religion.
Also, she really needs to buy a tripod. I can't believe she held just held it in front of her the entire time.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 8:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you so much! You are very thoughtful to think of me in such a way...
Actually, I'm a boxer, so it doesn't take much to believe I could hold a very small camera in front of me for three minutes. Gloves are much heavier and take more energy to hold up.
But, forgive me. I am surely rambling.
Have a nice day.
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
February 21, 2013 11:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's got nothing to do you being able to hold it up, seeing your arms stretch behind the camera and the shakes as you try to hold it still are distracting. Even putting it on a bookshelf would help.
Also, my criticism was honest.
I really had no idea what you were getting at. The way you referred to philosophy seemed as though you were selling an extremely non confrontational religion. Saying that it's okay for a person not think about philosophy, but its okay for them to think about philosophy, but if they don't think about philosophy without actively choosing not to think about it is bad, that's a really weird way to communicate an idea, and unfortunately that was the only takeaway I had from a 4:07 m:s long video.
If it's just supposed to be a v-log of your steam of consciousness, that's fine, but please try to organize your thoughts ahead of time. If I can watch a video intended to answer a question (that is in the title even) and at the end I'm no longer sure what the question was, something has gone wrong.
And I'm sure you could beat me up, Mrs. Boxer.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
February 22, 2013 5:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Who? Me? I doubt it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 22, 2013 10:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, is there anything about your unique uupbringing that aids you in your pursuit of gambling? Is it an enjoyable pasttime, or mainly just enjoyable afteer a win?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 3:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny. Get your own blog. I must read more of you. I don't always agree with you but damn you are riveting.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 8:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry. But setting yourself on fire to advocate your misogynist BS dose not make it any less BS. By all means, though - I whole heartedly support ALL antifeminists and MRA's following in this sore-egoed twat's footsteps :D
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 9:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He is not mysogynist. His point is that women are not fighting for real equality. Is it equality to refuse to do hard demanding studies because you wil be seen as female first. Is it equality when you spend more time on getting women's work to pay than in getting women into high paying positions. See real equality is not seeking to make less equal more, its making more equal more. It's getting into engineering, working a hundred hours a week and then you can cry about wages.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 9:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think many people here were uneasy about even thinking about of the possibility of women not actually being actually oppressed and or enslaved in the modern age. Many were trying to fit common sense or what alone said about women policing other women via passive feminine bullshit with a vision of women being actually enslaved to men, as if they needed desperately to mantain their (insane, paranoic) world view intact.
I think that if you believe women (today, in the western world) are actually enslaved or oppressed, well I think you are just completely crazy.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 10:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dovahkiin, I wish you would develop your ideas more thoroughly and do some actual research before holding forth. If you cannot, you miight try sticking to "I" statements and feeling statements. One might imagine hunter gathering societies to be considerably more peaceful, given they were busy merely trying to survive and hardly needed to make problems for their neightbors to take up their uunusued aggressive ener
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 11:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...sorry. Unusued aggressive energies, as is the case today. Did you look anything up at all?
Everybody else, what Florence King used to call Apocalypso Dancers, you do realize people have been bitching about this same stuff on different levels forever. Back when people wanted, oh crap, I don't know, I think it was limestone floors or something in Mayan or Aztec times they irreversibly harmed the environment and caused harmful erosion. You'd think we'd have a perspective on it by now but apparently not although yes it might be characteristic of Alone's readers to take what is essentially the insight of a bright 12 year old--- we're wrecking the environment!--- and continue to milk it to feed their own sense of grandiosity for having the insight to merely recognize the truth. It's much harder to find reasons to go forward, particularly in the area of subjectivity, feelings, moods, the self, all the stuff Alone's readers suck at. But telling other people the environment sucks and things are unstable, the centre will not hold is one thing- helping other people find the resources to go forward with their whole selves is much more important but hard to do if you haven't walked that path yourself. I do hope Alone's readers are not simply using the environment as a convenient projection for their own inner feelings of decay or atropy or just plain old simple pain, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 11:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here is Yeats, "The Second Coming" writing from the aftermath of World War I. Since it is widely considered to be great literature, I do hope Jonny will make an exception to his total hatred of messianic figures and allow one, at least, to have an impact, even an imaginary one:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 11:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
lmao, an idiot millionaire who can't manage a simple ailment without a girl yelling at him. never change, internet.
You have missed the entire point of that story; which is not about me and it's not about the physician but rather the nose-dive the species is taking utterly oblivious to the fact that they're killing all the Golden Geese.
Do you know how many surgeries have been conducted worldwide to 'fix' carpal tunnel syndrome? I don't. But I know it's a disease that doesn't really exist. I'm giving you one tiny example. Extrapolate. This story is not about me or my wrists or even about the miracle physician who was only interested in healing illness and pain and went bankrupt as a result. This is a story about the entire world doing this across the board, shooting ourselves in the foot and failing to act in our own Selfish best interests in nearly every facet of our existences.
Some idiotic poker frivolity. I don't really like to discuss the dark years of my life but the trauma of destroying lives is...some of my closest friends killed themselves. Kid millionaires. If you can't understand why you should endeavour to remedy that ignorance prior to dedicating your life to the same lie. I very nearly noosed as well. I was not having fun. I just had nothing else. I'd sacrificed everything for a lie.
I made like US$2 million in 3-4 years after being expelled for failing to pay tuition for my juris doctor (Masters Law) degree. That would have been a laugh; I can't seriously see myself graduating once I learned the truth about the law. But at the time, I was a perfectly docile naive dolt that wanted to think positive all the time and that's a huge mistake in this world of sociopaths. I didn't have $105,000 for Law so I used that as justification for becoming the thing I've always hated most of all; a religious leech (inhumane preying on the weak by the 'strong', seeking out disparity that isn't exploitable and taking 'advantage', creating misery in order to be happy). It took me half a decade to stop emotionally cutting myself in contempt.
I've never been religious but religion invented leeching. I'd been using my mind to protect myself from the erect cocks of Jesus Christ since I was 5 but when I was 22 the thought first occurred to me to use my mind to take 'advantage' or 'profit' from the exploitation of inferior minds (it's not natural to imagine religious disparities exist; they don't outside one's imagination). To think this insanely is a purely religious corruption and it's how they got the human race fighting everyone including themselves.
If you cannot instantly perceive optimality lies in protection and education of those who are weaker, pulling them up and pushing them higher than yourself Selfishly before throwing up a hand to be pulled up and launched even higher and so on (can you imagine all of Humanity doing that?) - then you're not fit to be on my planet and I would be much obliged if you would kick along STAT.
___________________________
Dovahkiin I'm not following the "they were liberated but they're no longer free" thing. If they are not free, they were never really liberated. You cannot liberate someone into slavery, either they become free or they were not liberated. rearranging slave row is not liberation.
Ah but that is where you are both right and wrong. It's a matter of perspective. Think...a favoured house nigger who is having sex with the master of the plantation. She is not free. But you couldn't tell her that. She is liberated. She just refuses to grasp the freedom within her fingertips. She (idiotically) perceives a future between herself and the white man who occasionally bids her company.
Girls have been liberated. But they are not free to be true to their biology. Watch out for that acid. Soon they forget about the acid and forget about who they are and start focusing on ruling over the stupid male niggers who imagine girls hate sex and must be treated Right. Liberated.
No one is free. We choose chains over freedom; security over adventure; the known over the unknown - people will even knowingly accept guaranteed misery they are comfortable with than risk the chance on an uncertain happiness.
I could write (really boring) novels about that subject. FML.
Dovahkiin ...the problem with any philosophy is that it doesn't really match reality in a rubber-meets-road kind of way.
The problem with philosophy is philosophers are too stupid to be plausible and yet people are even more stupid than they are. It's the dumb leading the blind leading the Helen Keller-types and everyone's going over the cliff.
Plato Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.
I don't like being brighter than Plato but if you can't immediately see that Plato didn't understand the first thing about laws, rules, human motive, reverse psychology, insanity - christ the moron imagined that people were good v bad. I was brighter than Plato at a very young age and the most annoying thing about that fact is most children are. Children don't need laws to act Selfishly in their own best interests (which includes the best interests of ever widening concentric circles). They instinctively know how to live optimally.
And then the corruption comes along. I was 5 when I started frantically trying to solve the equation for Happiness [You + X = Happiness]. I worked harder, I fought to hold back the tears more viciously, I screamed louder into pillows than I dared, I sweated myself smack into the asphalt on numerous occasions; I bled so much blood and endured so much more pain than almost anyone (winners are powered by pain and the next time you watch the Olympics you need to understand you're a horrible person and a sociopath if you enjoy the suffering for your 'entertainment').
And it was all for a lie.
I searched and fought and sacrificed so much purely to determine the value of X. After 24 years, when I was dying at 29, I'd given up in furious bitterness. I no longer believed happiness even existed. And moments from death, I saw myself at age 4 or 5, laughing maniacally without a care in the world. I was jumping in puddles or about to and life was freaking amazing. I'd completely forgotten I already knew happiness.
I'd spent a quarter of a century trying to solve an equation I had solved when I was a toddler, instinctively. That every toddler solves, instinctively. Literally every toddler is emotionally brighter than the finest minds I've met, some of the finest in the world; minds I've weighed, measured and sent wanting. And every toddler is my emotional superior.
It's a pity their mindless inflatable sex doll whore mothers believe that the finest minds in the world are fun to lie to and deceive. It's a shame the whore mothers of the world drown them in emotionally toxic poison and baby-talk pidgin English (and I'm not even talking about baby-talk babbling; I'm referring to an average mother's vocabulary and command of communicative skills).
A whore had corrupted my equation with X. I was 5 years old. I remember when I first was made to be afraid. You don't want to find the value of X in order to be happy. You were already happy. You just need to remove X from your equation.
[You = Happiness]
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 12:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Most of what you have just said was said over 100 years ago by Nietzsche in his Genealogy of Morals. Nietzsche is far more brilliant than you, so follow him, learn from him.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 1:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. But go where there are others as outraged as you. You are not the only one who knows all this. Here you are the only one, that's all: go here: guattaricomplex
I had a look at that site and it's kinda chaotic, at first blush. Also, I'm not actually as outraged as my writing is understandably perceived. When I say the human species is a virus that needs to be eradicated, I'm not saying it with any more emotion than if I was pointing out that the cane toad infestation in SE Queensland, Australia needs to be eradicated. I sure as hell don't want to do it, but that has no bearing on the fact that it needs to be done.
But as for finding validation or others who agree with me, to what end would this serve? I am writing only to learn; it's merely my inept writing ability that makes it sound like I'm preaching - I'm merely attempting to invoke counter-arguments and critical obliteration of any dubious logic I'm using. I do have ulterior motives (my siblings are dead and I toy with the idea of bringing that back to life) but I have no agenda other than that.
I'm all but certain the acid is responsible for every single problem faced by this miserable species and I'm all but certain the apathy to the acid being thrown wildly by almost everybody means our species, like ~7.2 billion of us, are basically worth a lot less than worthless and we really should have gone into receivership long ago.
I am not here to rehash the same topics (but until someone counters my arguments, that's exactly what I'll be doing). If I'm wrong, I want to hear why. But trying to force truth out of those who don't even know when they're lying any more is something of a redundant ambition...
I mostly just write to think. I don't know why people get emotional about scrolling on the Internet. I'd buy them each a better mouse or teach them how to configure the one they have more efficiently but I don't really think that's what their complaining is about. People don't like truth, no matter the format in which it's delivered.
I read The Last Psychiatrist because until I am shown evidence of a superior mind, Alone is the only one that I'm aware of who has solved optimality (insomuch as I understand his message, in any case). This world is drowning in imagined needy, and the only way to get out of Hell is to not enable their leverage of your desires or wants or preferences against you. Everyone needs to be Alone. We all need to be Narcissus.
I'm disappointed with le Carre of late. He nailed truth in his very embittered and perfect and raw tragic autobiographical novel (A Perfect Spy) but he's doubted himself since or gone off the boil. Maybe he thinks he was an exception or something ridiculous like that when the truth is, children are born and bred and disposed of to serve the whims of sociopaths. He was no different. We all have sociopaths for parents. It's that simple.
I know of no one else writing about these subjects intelligently. I admit I know little to nothing of Foucault but every time I read about some vaunted academic, I feel the sudden urge to just bankrupt them to shut them up (on a poker table or any one of another numerous ways inferior minds cannot protect themselves against). But only because they won't engage superior logical argument. Reading about Zizek made me so angry I very nearly wrote to him to seriously tell him how badly he is fucking up his son for life (and he really is, because he's a world-class moron - Zizek is the moron, the boy is merely a moron-in-making but that's the way love and manipulation work).
These academics don't know shit because they try to take what is impossibly simply and make it pathetically complex. The problems in this world are all so so simple, at their core. It's all about mothers which means it's all about being treated Right which means it's all about misogyny and religion's spraying of acid which corrupts the natural order.
_______________________
Someone brighter than I should really be drilling this next topic because it's arguably the most important error being made en masse and it's an error of sheer oblivious ignorance (rather than malice). Everyone should be talking about the period of time between birth and a human child developing the skills to communicate with their mother (who is invariably incommunicado). There is an initial two years of pure torture mothers inflict upon Their Own 'mindless' dolls; during which time the baby is forced to learn to speak its mother's pidgin tongue in frantic desperation; just to communicate with the monster so ignorant she has 100% of the control and 0% of the clue.
Mothers are too stupid to realise babies can communicate fine, in very nuanced ways. But a sociopath wouldn't be able to communicate or even be aware of the 'subtleties' of emotional conveyance of communication. Advanced minds communicate without audible words or sounds. Babies are screaming silently at their mothers and I can half interpret what they're saying and they are pissed off (understandably) and furious (justifiably) and terrified (aren't we all in a world of mothers so stupid that they're certain they Know Best).
I have a rough idea about what babies are screaming at their mothers silently but mothers are deaf, dumb, blind and [insert just about every other physical and mental limitation here] and you'd still be letting them off cheaply.
For two years, babies scream:
"HEY! I was having fun with that. Give that back. What? Why you take that from me?"
"Hey. Explain what you're doing here. This makes no sense. What the hell."
"Hey! I'm still eating. What's your problem. Give me my spoon back. What! Don't throw my food out? I was eating!"
"Leave me alone. I'm comfortable here. Why you gotta be moving me all the time. What is wrong with with you. Put me back where I was - I was into something there."
"Who the hell is this. Mom. Who is this person grabbing at me and scaring me. Mom? Who the hell is Janet? Mom is Janet safe? I got a bad feeling about this."
"Why you waking me up? What's the emergency? Hey get away let me go back to sleep. What's your freaking problem?"
"But I'm not tired so what are you....HEY! HEY COME BACK HERE. TURN THE LIGHTS BACK ON. I can't see shit. I'm not sleepy. Mom? You coming back Mom? Ever? Is this where I'm to die? In the darkness without any sensory stimulation. Mom you had better have a good reason for this."
Of course she does. She's gotta get back on the horse don't she?
Of course the funniest thing is that when babies magically solve the code that is [learning how to speak a language from scratch when it's been confused by endless babbling baby talk which sounds very similar] - so that they can finally communicate to their deranged mothers, the true comedy starts because their mothers communicate like this:
Sometimes when I say I'm fine, I really mean I'm insane.
I miss you the most when I'm saying No means No.
So babies learn how to communicate with their mothers only to get the mother of all surprises. They crack the Enigma code like the geniuses they are, only to discover their mothers are all batshit insane. Now, I would be lying if I claimed to remember how I felt when I realised this (and we all realised this at some point).
But I'm telling you for a fact that I only repress and suppress trauma so intense you don't even want to know. I don't. That's why it's suppressed.
DH Lawrence: The world of men is dreaming, It has gone mad in its sleep, And a snake is strangling it, But it can't wake up.
We're all asleep. It's Stockholm Syndrome. PTSD. Safe mode. Running on low power. Whatever you wanna call it, the human race is powered down. And it's almost certainly pointless but if it were not, now would be a damn good time to wake the fuck up.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 1:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What is this natural order you refer to? You must mean an ideal vision of how things ought to be. I find as much as you do speak you lack clarity on this point, perhaps because you go off on tangents and pet peeves. But I really would like to understand what the world should look like, given one could, for example, rewrite history. If this were possible, would there be any place for mothers and their children? What about fathers?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 1:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So you write to think. You are monologue-ing. You are not wrong but it has all been said so much better than you express it. Oliver Sachs with deaf children in Martha's Vineyard signing by 6 mos. Really you belong on the couch of a good psychoanalyst. Where you could find one is an unanswerable question. Baudrillard says what you say, Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Virilio, Deleuze but you don't want to learn from anyone with a superior mind. You just want to vent. John Hold wrote an article in Psychology Today (Oct 74) just as vicious concerning children as anything you have written and almost 50 years ago. There is nothing new in what you say. The Guattari site is just a window into more places if you looked at the blog list. No you shut the window and came back to tell me how chaotic it was. That's because they are quoting all the great thinking people now and in history that think the way you do, only much better. Zizek? The child does have a mother whom he lives with. Have you read Zizek's Hegel Less Than Nothing? I doubt it. Your thinking is intuitively great but you present it in a mish mash which is why you projected chaos on the Guarttari site as it was your own chaos you were seeing.
Get on the couch. Alone is not terribly original.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 1:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ursula LeGuin writes fiction that answers your question. Fantasy and Science fiction in which many different alternative ways of living on a planet are explored through fiction. Her father was Kroeber the famous anthropologist so she comes by it "naturally" I guess. Startling in her originality.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 1:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nietzsche is brilliant but in some ways he is not more brilliant than I am. I would never have said something so stupid as "God is dead."
That was really dumb. And yes, I know his character said it. Like I said, Nietzsche made the mistake of getting down in the gutter to speak with the gutter rats but he did not understand how reduced and how base and how gutter-loving they truly are. He didn't really get their motives.
I'm not in the same academic universe as these guys, but I know things they didn't. I know the dark secrets they were unaware of. I know where they were hobbled by their own love of their own exploiters. I'm not saying I know anything that will be of any use; except to say that they were all guaranteed to fail because they just didn't get religion. At. All.
Very few get religion like I do. Did you know, for example, that most of the believers are in the atheist and agnostic camps? Did you know religion is basically a license to breed child slaves whom you remunerate with emotional currency like love and pride and expressions of pleasure?
Check out this little kid wanting to make his parents proud. God bless their Home, Sweet Home.
Of course, to make someone feel good, you have to first make them feel bad. Then if they behave or if they can afford it, you can bring them back to neutral.
I believe the entire world is explained by that graph I created in a moment of clarity, watching a mother burst into tears in public because Mattel had done something very cruel to her little daughter and her little daughter was paying forward the misery to the woman who held the purse strings....
...of an empty purse.
Being the hero I am, I checked the mother out but she wasn't hot enough so I kicked along my way. What can I say? I'm a humanitarian. But I don't do charity any more. I've caused enough orphans to be raped by my stupidity in imagining that they needed money when there is plenty of money. Their misery and poverty is the product of hoarding cause dudes like orphans.
They make great sex slaves. Who are they going to complain to? God?
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 2:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah I never connected Lovecraft's Cthulhu before with this poem. Things Fall Apart is the title of a book by that wonderful Achebe from South Africa.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 2:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He did not say "God is dead." that is taken from context in the inferior Walter Kauffman translation which is all the English speaking world had until rather recently. Baudrillard clears up this ready-made sound bite "God is dead." What Nietzsche did was to challenge God to appear if he weren't dead. Quite different. So Baudrillard concludes that the Ghost of God will still be around for a long time to come.
This is what good reading of good thinkers can do for you. You are arrogant and your knowledge is not ordered in any way. The way a patient talks on the couch when free associating. You are using this site for your free analysis and as most things free it is worth the nothing you pay. The point of paying for analysis is to give the analyst leverage. It forces you to keep yourself in a position to pay for it. And it ensures that the analyst who has invested just as much time in this as you have is paid to do so. I have tried to do it for nothing or very cheap and it rarely helps. But sometimes it really does but never when it is free. I don't know why. Freud did it on a walk in the mountains with a serving girl while on his vacation. So it can be done.
Oh and if you ever decide to go this route be sure you find a Lacanian. They are the only radical ones left. If you read the case study Dominique: Analysis of an Adolescent Boy by Francoise Dolto you will get it. Before each session is some history and present catch up. The session is done in verbatim transcript. He says, she says. No interpretation. From session 1 to 2 you see an enormous change as this supposedly psychotic retarded boy has his language code cracked.
And there is a very old paper in psychoanalysis on the mother having to decode the baby's language. By Abraham maybe. Sounds like him. You would like the crazy wonderful Ferenzi from Romania too. Cases in small fragments. You won't get anything much here.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 2:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So, is the comments section now a surrogate blog for hopelessly broken nuts like jonny and boring pseudointellectual tryhards like abbeysbooks? When did that happen?
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 3:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny is NOT a hopelessly broken nut and Abbeysbooks is NOT a pseudointellectual and he certainly is not having to try hard. Look at you- you are certainly making the least possible meaningful contribution to the conversation. You should shut up.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 3:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks. But this is what happens when you break into the Dominating Discourse. It is to be expected.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 3:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny, is there anything about your unique uupbringing that aids you in your pursuit of gambling? Is it an enjoyable pasttime, or mainly just enjoyable afteer a win?
I have never enjoyed gambling. I have gambled in more ways than one when I was trying to self-destruct and imagined I was saying something profound to sociopathic friends who literally weren't watching, listening and didn't care so that was some pointless bonfires but then money isn't the root of all evil; money is the dyke that holds back the Maslow needs of children and humans that would otherwise be decent were it not for the hoarding and the misery that ensues.
Religion is built on the rock of human suffering. Without pain there would be no perceived need for their existence. They create the pain, they then scoop up the suffering confused victims of their own manufactured misery and give them lies that temporarily pain relieve. The trick is pain pain pain. The more they can make the world suffer, the more power they'll have.
I never gambled when I was professional proposition better. I had days where I lost 6 figures in 'real' promissory notes but I earned (+EV) on those days (professional gambling isn't complex, it's just geeks playing games of statistics and maths & whomever is able to process the most relevant data the most intelligently will have the edge and once you have edge, you just grind it. I was very good to exceptional but I never enjoyed it. The losses were miserable and the wins were...relieving? It's like a reverse emotional free-roll for misery. Also, I was being a leech and by the time I had enough to "have fun" (which was my ostensible motive) I couldn't really see how I was supposed to have fun alone. So my money became my friends money. This was very natural and unemotional for me.
It created monsters out of my friends in ways that if I told you 1/10th of the horror, you would not believe me. I tried to impress girls with it, in various inventive and subtle ways; but girls aren't really into money. They will take it and despise you for it, but having money will only invoke contempt if you hoard it and resentment if you don't. So I tried to do some charity. Let's not talk about that horror.
I was so scarred from discovering the dark truths about disadvantaged children, I decided I had to destroy the money and then I planned to kick along because I was not emotionally stable enough to cope with the horrors of this world and the reduced state of humans who - when I would bring them evidence of child exploitation in an attempt to stir them into action, I'm pretty sure I just generated some sex tourism. For real. This is 'Humanity'.
Destroying the money was easy because the online casino industry is more corrupt than the Catholic Church and it's an easy game they play. You deposit. You play. If you lose, bad luck. If you win, they don't pay. Hah. They pay out little amounts but the kind of gambling I was doing, they were just stealing high 5 and 6 figures because they could.
I didn't care. I was dying because no one had answers, I didn't understand how people were all insane (and no, I did not believe I was sane), but I was sick to death of people and very ill myself. There is but one way to create mental insanity (that isn't structural trauma or chemical imbalance) and that is to lie to children. I was very ill. My siblings were dead, I watched them die; I refused to compete with their mother in filthy games of love. So I was gone. Then some stuff happened and I wanted to live again because as it turned out, everything I'd ever perceived was a lie and I had been unaware of this. It was all a distortion of reality corrupted by emotional root-kits. I got rid of the root-kits and figured out where I had been going all wrong.
My entire life I'd been conflicted; capable of seeing opportunity to destroy and accumulate people and wealth as easily as any child who survived the CoG I'd imagine (I know of one). But I didn't want to hurt people or take advantage, so I lived conflicted and wracked with guilt and angst because I was corrupted and incapable of realising that selfishness is not what religion asserts.
Intelligent Selfishness is the ruthless, shameless, optimal pursuit of your own best interests (presumably happiness / joy if you're sane). And there's no way to do that without pursuing the best interests of those who can bring you happiness or misery both in the present and especially in the future. It's our treatment of our future best interests that make our race batshit insane. We have up to ~7.2 billion options and I am so selfish I want them ALL to be happy; only because it would be in my selfish interests for that to happen.
The world sees it differently. We can agree to disagree but I am right and religion and the world is batshit crazy creating misery, killing, raping, molesting, lying, deceiving, manipulating, exploiting, excluding, abusing and assaulting everyone else...in order to be happy.
Hmm. That's as insane as gambling at online casinos or playing games of love. You lose badly but you can't win.
Gambling is identical to any addictive vice; love, power, drugs (licit and illicit), sex, food, emotional validation, etc. The problem is never the vice or the substance of addiction. The problem is that humans are addicted to relief from pain.
Those who are aware of this fact manufacture pain for that reason. They obviously also control the supply of pain 'relief'.
___________________
What is this natural order you refer to? You must mean an ideal vision of how things ought to be. I find as much as you do speak you lack clarity on this point, perhaps because you go off on tangents and pet peeves. But I really would like to understand what the world should look like, given one could, for example, rewrite history. If this were possible, would there be any place for mothers and their children? What about fathers?
A world without lies.
Everyone is selfish.
Everyone is brilliantly sane and intelligent beyond our capacity to fathom because instead of lies drilling us into confusion and misery, we'd be bouncing off billions of humans connected to a Selfish Humanity where the option to 'cheat' cannot exist. There is no gain, no motive, no incentive. Being part of something that huge and that amazing; there are no threats but if a threat arose all Of Humanity would instantly rally in defence of Selfish Humanity.
It would be a world devoid of need.
It would be a world where no one ever does something they do not wish to do. 7.2 billion people could do nothing, but as long as they did not drag back on Humanity, a single child taking a single Selfish step forward would drag 7 billion with him for the same amount of effort.
Mothers would breed children because children would be the 'aristocracy'. In the way that a man might garner global acclaim for inventing the best Kindle-like device, a monther would garner global acclaim for bringing a child into the world with the very strong potential of improving on that device in time.
A world of universal truth, without psychotic emotional needy, where children brazenly interrupt a speaker who had 10,000 spellbound because the child perceives an error in logic which, if mistaken, would be gently explained and if not mistaken, 10,000 would turn spellbound to the child including the speaker. Pure, unadulterated selfishness driving everything.
No one would ever be confused. No one would ever feel their work was in vain if they created an inferior product to the one used by the entire world (and the entire world would only ever use one kind of product, forever improving of course - no such thing as intellectual property or property rights or birth rights or entitlement or vomit-inducing religious corruption. Just pure sanity.
Everyone living in various pockets of the stratosphere. It'd be as simple as 100% truth for Selfish motivations alone. It would be Utopia. As simple as Selfish sanity and truth permitting humans to see the optimality of seeking mutual advantage.
Girls would be having a lot more sex. You know, without any Hera whores throwing acid at those who aren't looking to capitalise from self-defeating lies.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 4:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks Jonny. It is striking how much your experience of work parallels that of other ordinary citizens in America. Unfortunate how your experiences in arriving at the same place as they were so radical, I'm sure that makes it hard to assume the yoke of normalcy. It must be easier for you to relate to others with extreme experiences such as your own. I was wondering earlier if your compassion (?) for whores in Bangkok versus disdain (?) for whores in America was based on perceiving the whores in Bangkok as being substantially more disempowered or perhaps more filled with suffering. Obviously someone with your intelligence can clarify this for me as well. It must be easy to see as well that in some ways the whores in America might be in some ways more disempowered or more filled with suffering. Although dividing things into ironic, false dichotomies once one has reached a substantial age and level of maturity is perhaps a tendency one might want to grow beyond. Hard to resist sometimes though.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 4:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You said something about Lacan earlier. I was reading about the Mirror Stage and while what I read did a more than adequate job of refuting the mirror stage as a literal stage of development, it is still a compelling idea- most ideas with mirrors attached to them tend to be compelling. Funny. Anyway- while the article did present the acknowlegement that this viewing of oneself as a seperate, powerful individual as a positive thing, I am not so sure. I'm not wild about the idea of self versus other ideas when one arrives at a conclusion that hearkens to too much seperateness anyway. But I think I skipped this stage when I was a kid or something roughly analogous to it (lots of abuse and neglect). In any case, I was musing about this today and I thought of certain interpretations of Genesis- the idea that consciousness of self, awareness of the self as other is the root of evil, more or less. I can't remember- I may actually have come up with this on my own. Probably in an altered state of consciousness. At any rate, you're smart, I thought I'd ask you to comment. Please don't give me a reading list. Anything intellectual, post-anything, philosophical pretty much makes me want to open a vein. I'm funny that way. There's a thousand other ways I'd suffer before I'd read wordy complicated crap- a good indicator is if the word discourse is thrown around a lot. "The Discourse of Discourse." I hate that. I just like the small isolated paragraphs in that stuff that might mean something. Thanks! Boy- I'm being demanding but you've got a nice broad range here, I'm sure you can advise. When Jonny talks about selfishness this may be what he means, albeit expressed poorly... eh. whatever. Please coment. I've been wondering in the back of my mind for some time if what he means is where the lines get blurry and self and others blur, the distinctions between selfishness and altruism disappear, all that. I'm sure that must be relevant to Lacan as well- that is sort of like an emotional intersubjectivity, right? Right?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 5:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'd really like to go into this with you but this is not the best place. I am over at twitter with the same ID so if you could contact me there it would be great. I am kind of finished with this place now as twitter allows you to hot link to all sorts of cutting edge thinking. Comment boards are a thing that is dying. All this ping pong back and forth gets very tedious. You need to read Masha Tupitsyn Monsters and Beauty. It's online and you will love it. I too cannot stand long wordy linear reading anymore. That Discourse is over so forget it. I will read it if the style sings along. Masha writes in fragments, has published a book on tweets, is a philosophy PHD candidate at The European University in Switzerland which seems to be the place all cutting edge thinkers do seminars for auditing or official degrees. Babette Babich is another one to know. The new feminists are wonderful. Self and other was on Babette Babich's profile today with Judith Butler and Yanay (whom I don't know about) so check her out on twitter. Just do a search on babette Babich there and it will take you to that Fordham conference. I am also seymourblogger at gmail. This software here is too clunky and I am forced into a style I don't like. I do a lot of blogs you might like on this stuff. Lacan, mirror, is just a tip of thinking Lacanian.
jonny I cannot help. He doesn't want to do other than what he is doing here. I gave him what he needs to know to go further. I am in quite a network of wonderful women who are interested in all this and whom you will get to know. We can hot link on twitter in seconds.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 5:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I was not refering to "namae nanka" as a misogynist (though I suspect he is). I'm talking about the Tom Ball fellow and all the men with butthurt egos - hiding in the dark corners of the web muttering to each other about how bad feminism and modern women are - and how oppressed they themselves are when not given the same priveleges as the men before them.
These are the people TRULY potentially harmful to humanity, wishing to drag the world (or at least half of it) back to the dark ages... To a world that makes the current "system" that so many in here don't like, look like heaven on earth. So yes, the world would be better off with all of these types emulating Mr. Crispy. And sooner rather than later.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 5:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Has anyone ever written one snappy, relevant piece about the myth of progress? Anyone?
I for one welcome guys who want to bitch they're oppressed. I think it is fair enough.
Presumably if someone wasn't being oppressed there'd be no need for all this progress you seem to care so much about.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 6:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well, I tried to tweet once or twice but... I'm not a technology person. I can tweet from my own account, which is under the name ILoveAuden. I managed to make it so I follow you so that's done. I feel weird about it, not for any reason exactly, although I feel a sense of loyalty to this site, regardless of how rational that is or not. I've posted here for a long time. I've seen Jonny change, he's not static by any means, although sometimes the preseveration gets hard to take and although it might be good for him to add some quiet, inner, alone time to his routine as well as the more compelling venting, he's okay.
So I guess I'll see you on twitter. Thanks. Raylene
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 8:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Couldn't come up with anything on ILoveAuden. ?????
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 8:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you could hear me right now, I'd sound as emotional as Jonny writes: "I haaaaaaaaate Twitter!!!!!!" That's because, I hate Twitter. More than ever. I tried to sign up, they told me I am signed up, I can log in, but they won't send me my SMS with further registration instructions no matter how many times I ask, and they give me no options for contacting support, and if I try to get them to send me other info by my phone # they deny there is an account associated with it, etc. This is the same reason I hate wordpress.com. It's just a bunch of idiots who set up some kind of deely and are accountable to no one for nothing. They're never there when you need them. I'll let you know if i ever get it straightened out. I'm slightly insane right now- I'm going to fix myself a nice tall drink and try to think good thoughts. My email is [email protected] if you want. I'm going to go lie down. :-(
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 8:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny, you haven't eliminated your mother or your need for a mother. You've just sexualized her and also split her off in 200 directions and variants to serve your purposes. The problem is, how well is that bitch serving your purposes really?
Also, if you weren't quite so tangential and lengthy, I would be ablet o read what you write without zoning through quite so much of it since after a while it all sounds like one long angry drone. You really need to write as much as you want, but then sit down and edit with a focus.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 1:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry, Raylene, but you're the one who should shut up. It's indicative of the uselessness of "abbeysbooks" that she interprets your telling me to do so as evidence that you are on the side of the oppressed. I suppose that's what happens when what you call thinking is who/whom?
It's not useful to anyone, as the multiple downvotes abbeysvotes has gotten throughout this thread, to keep your tongue so firmly up Foucault's matrix that you need AIDS testing.
I submit for consideration that her comment upthread: "I saw Satchel Paige pitch in 1953. In Cleveland. I was thrilled," is the single most narcissistic thing a commenter has ever posted on this website. Who could possibly give even the shadow of a fuck? Why offer this information, other than to communicate, "I am a middle aged white woman and I am NOT RACIST." We get it. Still don't care.
The Nietzsche quotation most apt for abbeysbooks is this: "If you can't hit the nail on the head, please just don't hit it at all."
As for jonny, a sample: "I'd been using my mind to protect myself from the erect cocks of Jesus Christ since I was 5."
I'd offer more, but he basically goes on like this as if posting on the internet was a therapy session. The boy ain't right. I'd ask him to tell us all where religion touched him, but dear God he'd probably do it. His comments have the undeniable appeal of a ten car pileup.
I second the commenter above who said Alone needs to post again because when he waits too long the philosophy majors start playing with themselves. Sadly, [mental] porn.
Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 1:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well PN let me quote you:
"It's not useful to anyone, as the multiple downvotes abbeysvotes has gotten throughout this thread, to keep your tongue so firmly up Foucault's matrix that you need AIDS testing."
What a nasty little sentence here referring to Foucault's homosexuality and his death by AIDS. Can't even compare with what you said about mine.
I wasn't aware that I was in a popularity contest here. Gee. votes and all. Just like DC. I am impressed. NOT.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 9:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nope, it's still you who needs to shut up. It's also typical of Alone's readers to find narcissism under every goddamn rock especially if they just don't like that rock. Abbeysbooks has made plenty of good contributions and although I did not read the baseball quotation she seems fine otherwise and one comment can't damn a person unless it's just flat out mean maybe. Jonny grew up in the Children of God cult and so it makes sense that he might have issues around erect cocks and Jesus Christ as well. He's spoken of it before but you aren't following, you're just jumping in with judgment. Furthermore, if your intent is to help by cluing everybody in on their narcissism, you must know by now that calling someone a narcissist even if they have narcissistic issues does not do a lot of good. You just want to be mean though which is kind of more narcissistic than anything anybody else has said. Sort of like grandiosity manifesting itself perhaps. "I'm PN, I'm smarter AND less narcissistic than everybody!"
I am enjoying talking to both Abbeysbooks and Jonny and so they cannot be narcissistic because someone else---me--- is enjoying them. So in a sense they speak for me.
You on the other hand have to make people up to speak for--- specifically, Alone. "Hey Alone, look at the philosophy majors!" Oh, you're so funny, PN. "You better write another column, I don't like these comments!"
Maybe he'll get right on it.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 12:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think this was TLP's last post, hence the word CROATOAN scribbled on the picture. We will wonder where he went, but we won't ever know.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 2:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My friend knows him and she said he is retiring and has land someplace sunny with good golf and all that. She said he looks like he needs a break. He feels like he accomplished what he set out to do with this column but he has other stuff, like a big list of other projects. So you never know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 2:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Narcissism is at the present time a concept. As Nietzsche says, "Take a hammer to it." Then when you do you can reassemble it genealogically. Start with Narcissus and Echo.
Hymen Spotnitz was the great psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who began the school of Modern Psychoanalysis in NYC. Many of the lay analysts who had been with Theordor Reik at his school (one of Freud's disciples who was given one of the 12 gold rings - Listening With the Third Ear - ring a bell?)were social workeers at the Jewish Board of Guardians and Spotnitz won them over after Reik died.
Modern Psychoanalysis was invented to cure schizophrenia. It takes about 10 years. The narcissistic personality has defense mechanisms that turn against the self. In other words if you can shred yourself, then no one is going to ever be able to do it better and more intelligently than you yourself can. So any interpretation that a classical analyst gives the patient with a narcissistic disorder becomes more fuel for attacking the self. This is what everyone here is doing to jonny and why his comments get longer and longer and longer and then they get to victimize him for what they are doing to him because they just don't know enough, and because they do not have him in treatment with them. So lay off everyone.
The narcissistic patient must be treated differently. First out you never address them as "you" as that is perceived by them as an attack on the ego. Even if you say, "Do you like this warm sunny weather we are having?" This is where Lacanian thinking comes to the fore. The treatment is linguistic. You must turn the previous question into say, "Is it warm outside?" Of course if you have studied Chomsky you will see the 2 layers in that question as "for you" at the deep structure level. To simplify all this you MUST phrase your communications into OBJECT ORIENTED QUESTIONS OR STATEMENTS.
The idea is that you have to release the aggression for the patient to get well. But that aggression has to be turned against you. So you must wait, be patient, and be careful how you do it. All this takes time. First comes the positive transference that you are perfect, can do no wrong, blah blah blah. When this begins to sour you begin what is called the "NEGATIVE NARCISSISTIC TRANSFERENCE" where you can do nothing right. You charge too much more, you don't help me, I am still miserable, blah blah blah.
Here's an example of a performing artist I worked psychoanalytically with for the purpose of creating a piece of performance art. We were in NYC auditioning for a producer from Amsterdam who bought these pieces to be performed in Amsterdam, the cutting edge place for performers in Performance art. (think Spaulding Gray). So our psychoanalytic scene began and D was a very competitive and beautiful performer, Grotowski trained at Villanova.
There was an audience of sophisticated New Yorkers there as well as the Amsterdam producer who watched a number of pieces while there to choose from.
D: (laying on the couch and she had just moved to New York and bought a loft in Chelsea whatever)I was broken into and a lot of equipment was stolen, the plumbing doesn't work," and generally a mess of things that were wrong with this new place (1981)that happens when you move into an area that is promising, but not quite yet. "Yesterday when I went out the wind almost blew me down, but I liked it. I liked feeling my strength walking against it."
Me: Silence
D: You aren't helping me. I've been seeing you almost a year and I still have the same problems I had when I first came to see you. J and I still don't get along (husband) my career is still stagnant, etc.
Me: That's right I haven't helped you. In fact everything is worse. You had a beautiful home in Philadelphia, a loving husband, a passionate lover and now you have none of these. (audience breaks up into laughter)
D: That's not your fault. I chose to sell the house, move here, and you didn't have anything to do with C leaving me for a younger woman. (narcissistic defense protects the object and blames the self which is what the infant and child did with the mother. Turned the rage against the self to protect the mother)
and then I can't remember the rest of it but she went on to rationalize all the things that were right with the move etc.
The other way to work, and it is faster,and thrilling, is to go with Lacanian theory using Francoise Dolto's linguistic analysis and for that you will have to read the transcript of Dominique:Analysis of An Adolescent Boy. It is riveting.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 2:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think he pretty much said all that needs to be said. So if his intent was to point out what's wrong with our culture in as many ways as possible- as well as offering ways to fix ourselves- I think he succeeded. Sure, there are new topics that come up, new stories, new angles that you can take, new opportunities to try to say the same thing in a slightly different way. And in my opinion, no one in recent memory has addressed these themes in such an entertaining and unique way. But if the readers aren't getting it by now, they never will:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/the_other_ego_epidemic.html
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Has TLP left or is TLP in classic analytic mode and just keeping silent. The thread is continuing and that's what you want when you work with a group. People are talking and expressing their feelings. jonny is getting more and more verbose and more people are beginning to attack him and each other. This is not unlike a classroom situation when you do a class in this way.
Alan Bloom in later years wrote a novel (Shylock I think something like that) that was ordered around a group who had been meeting with their psychiatrist for a decade or more. He informs them that he has cancer in the beginning, that it is incurable, so it is a matter of time. So they are facing Death. And a new member has just joined who relies on Spinoza as his primary therapist of choice and is coming to the group to get certification. I suggest you're reading it if anyone here is curious. Bloom is always exceptional.
So is TLP keeping silent or has TLP left the room permanently? Just the short time I have been here I have noticed that people attack each other. If TLP is doing this blog as a way to sort of conduct therapy and sort of not to conduct therapy, but then his credentials have been placed up front, so evidently that is part of it. (Patients always want to know what your credentials are. "How would it help you to know that? I don't mind telling you but I am interested in why you want to know." ETC.)To put them right smack on the table at the beginning is questionable.At least in Modern Psychoanalytic practice when you are working with narcissistic patients.
So is TLP gone or just listening in the wings? And is TLP aware that he is in over his head? The patients in the group are attacking each other. This is what you can deliberately do to get the group to dissolve at their own initiative. The facilitator of the group has ONE very important role.
1. To NOT let the members attack each other. They are attacking each other because they are deflecting their aggression towards you on each other. Dysfunctional families do this with their children to get the heat off their lack of parenting skills. So the siblings attack each other and it continues after the parents death when they fight over the will the rest of their lives and their children carry it on etc etc etc. Down unto the 7th generation was it?
TLP at this point in this thread anyway has lost control. TLP doesn't know what to do because TLP has not deflected the aggression on himself in a timely way. Not the anxiety about his whereabouts are beginning to surface. A friend of a friend, an unnamed "source" has said........so now we are beginning to enter tabloid land. Anger towards TLP will build up as this goes on, people will drop out because they are not getting "free" therapy or at least being listened to and responded by a certified authority in the field, so eventually the anger will arrive. Just not in time to be worked with. Creativity is not going to come without a price and that price is your released anger. Released in an appropriate way which is the duty of the therapist to facilitate. So all the narcissism is simply repeating the standard "narcissistic defense" once more with feeling as they say.
If TLP does disappear then TLP is doing what therapist often do when they feel at a loss with a patient, arrange for them to go in a polite way. I once had to get the feds after one because of the letters he sent me. He had killed his young brother when a child, but he didn't think I knew. I suspected he had killed his mother. He "arranged" to be the only one left standing to inherit the house and I just din't think I could handle him. He had been threatening me on the couch and I had a big guy sit in the waiting room. I put him in supervision with a seasoned analyst. and she said, "The next time he threatens you you tell him that if he so much as moves his little finger off that couch you are going to bash his head in!" I am about 5 feet and he was very big.
so of course he did threaten in the next session and I did say that. He roared and roared with laughter at that until tears ran down his face. When schizophrenics laugh like that they are getting better. Schizophrenics never laugh.
Anyway let's just see what TLP does. I find this interesting. TLP is now in a double-bind with my interpretation of his resistance. Your turn TLP. Are you going to tiptoe out of the room and leave your patients or are you coming back with no more tools in your toolkit.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's missy's narcissistic defense in play. Missy is protecting TLP by assuring him that he has done a good job in pointing out the wrong things in the culture and now it is time to pick up our marbles and go home like big boys and girls.
See how it works. Protect the object at the expense of self and all the rest of the siblings. Time to grow up boys and girls. TLP has done the very best he could and now it is up to us to use this information and go out into the world.
"But if the readers aren't getting it by now, they never will:" and the parting shot is an attack at all those left who want more from TLP. NEAT.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well, I think that what you are saying has a place. But the thing is, the cruelest thing you can do to anybody with a mental illness is isolate them on the basis of the idea they can't handle reality. That they need to be treated very carefully and in a very specific, specialized way. And this kind of attitude is endemic in the United States, and it is harmful. To both the mentally ill AND society that could benefit in important ways by vbeing more inclusive.
If Jonny himself were asking me to lay off, i might, although it's doubtful if he were insulting me in the process, because for me, mentally ill people don't get a special license to be cruel. Or not much of one. I've noticed with most mental health workers, however, they do get that license. I don't consider that doing them many favors, but I guess it's all about balance.
As far as schizophrenia being all about aggression turned inward, this may be true. But as someone with a former diagnosis of schizophrenia and with a current other psychotic disorder, i would have to say that is a gross oversimplification, but every patient is different. I think it is fair to say most normal people wrestle with aggression or guilt turned inward inappropriately. I don't give them any special license to use it for any favors, but that's me. I don't think schizophrenic patients should be lumped together with narcissistic patients even though I am sure all mental disorders just like all human beings have their narcissistic issues. I think it is inherently cruel to take a complicated diagnosis such as schizophrenia and throw narcissism into the (patient's conscious) mix; I wouldn't consider it a particularly helpful vocabularly for the patient to have. With a genuinely narcissistic patient, a person whose personality disorder is destroying their life, I would consider accurate information (about my perceptions) to be ethically necessary to some extent. Probably. and so there i would feel obligated to put thier narcissism in their face. I think people generally should know and be knowlegable about their diagnosis, generally.
jonny has shown he can more than adequately tell people to fuck off on his own if he needs to. He likes power and control and might consider it a kindness to not be coddled by people treating him in highly specialized, overly careful ways. he may even find it condescending and infuriating to be treated as such.
And he is high functioning enough that he deserves to be able to make that call, make his own calls.
I think taking any single perspective on schizophrenia too seriously, whether it is "true' or not, can be very harmful. the essence of what i think therapy can do that is perhaps the most valuable is holding out hope, holding onto hope for the patient. who cannot always do it for his or her self. when one takes one and only one point of view it tends to distinguish hope and also it might make the therapist mold too much of things the way they want to see them, which could destroy valuable insights and destroy including a role for the patient's own agency, if you will, in the process. the patient has to be the last authority on his or her illness. I really think that the story of what happened rests finally there. I would imagine the therapist's role in the meantime might be almost like a place holder, trying to keep the patient's best interests at heart. It's probably a long series of hard, risky, very grey areas. Lord knows why anybody would want to do it; I guess that is why it pays well.
Jonny is also more than clear I am not a therapist; I have no authority, but like everyone else I have the right to use the brain God gave me, and i like talkling to other mentally ill people.
I also do not quite consider Jonny to be schizophrenic. He has mentioned he has money; he can hire a therapist as well if that is what is lacking for him. there are many psychotic disorders and many degrees of functioning within them although schizophrenia of course is always the one that gets the press. It might be helpful if the other disorders and degrees of functioning got more attention so that Americans can start thinking about mental illness and the mentally ill in a more relaxed fashion and in terms of a continuem.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Missy expresses no feelings of anger that TLP just "disappeared" without a good-bye or farewell ritual. TLP just "died". A "mother" just walked out and never came back or a father did the same or a wife, or husband or boyfriend or girlfriend. Just walked out. and Missy isn't upset! And Missy is telling the rest of you to just deal with it. Be polite and grateful for what you got. You don't have any right to be in a rage because you were deserted, because your father died in the war, your mother had cancer that was terminal. You don't have a right to your rage!Bullshit!
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually, I have more than told Alone what I think of him ad infinum. I think there was a fuck you and a few other things. I may have called him a piece of shit and I may have told him I have a little dick he can suck. He gets it, trust me. I just made up the story for fun. I wanted to be more creative and outlandish. But mostly it was just whimsy. I can't really imagine him golfing, but who knows. Maybe in some way I was wishing him happiness. But in terms of what I wanted other people to do, I certainly did not want to shut them down. If anything, I thought of it more as giving them a way to express, not a way of shutting down. If I protected Alone, which I probably did to some extent, it was by not flagrantly using him and making up a really elaborate story with every single selfish outcome I could think of. You know: he's retired, and he's come to come mow the grass shirtless and make me drinks or whatever. Then ... then i can do this, and this, and that...
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wow.
1. All schizophrenics are narcissistic. All narcissists are not necessarily schizophrenic. The psychic structure is a very fragile ego bashed between a powerful superego and a powerful id. that's psychological lingo. The American emphasis on strengthening the ego came in with Ernest Jones. Freud and especially that great clinician Breuer (who was better than Freud) did not work that way.
The thinking in the rest of your comment is too confused fro me to respond to in any helpful way. At this point in time I do not think of schizophrenia as a disease or a disorder. Deleuze and Foucault have changed my mind on this. It is an artifact of late capitalism but if you want more then read Dealuze. BTW he does not write in a bring linear style AT ALL. Delightful and delicious. As Artaud, who suffered from confinement in a mental institution for 10 years has said a great deal about this and Anais Nin has recorded a lot of him in her diary of that time before the war. What Foucault has taken from Artaud is that if there is "a work" then it is not insanity (juridical term) or psychosis (psychological term). That's where I am now. The culture produces what is labeled schizophrenic because big pharma needs a DSMO whatever to prescribe and get insurance companies to pay. Schizophrenia is a product of late capitalism, the Matrix. It dates back about 300 years from the Great Confinement" in Europe. For that you will have to go to Foucault's Madness and Civilization.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you trying to drum up transference that is not there, or is all this your issues of abandonment, and if so, perhaps you should say "I." And "my feelings."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am surprised at the amount of people saying TLP is retiring/this blog has ended.
TLP has taken longer breaks than this before, and comes back. I havent seen anything that implies otherwise. Apart from the lack of updates on Partial Objects, especially the Walking Dead reviews.
Im still going to take this opportunity to archive the articles on this website though. Just in case...
... Regarding that, when you read the archives on this blog, there is one date where the post appears to be deleted. Does anyone know which post this was/why it was deleted? Just for my own voyeuristic interest?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(Are you trying to drum up transference that is not there, or is all this your issues of abandonment, and if so, perhaps you should say "I." And "my feelings.")
I am not the therapist here so transference is an incorrect term to use. Then to suggest I have issues of abandonment so should say I and my feelings.
In other words you are interpreting that I am projecting my feelings on what I have said. Sorry. You are too inexperienced for me to let you get away with that. When ANYONE who has been of significance to you LEAVES unannounced, issues of abandonment come up. Freud would trace it back to the mother who "leaves" you when you are an infant. For whatever reason. To do the dishes, go out of the house, or permanently. Whatever.
These are not my feelings. Let me say it again. I have not been here very long to form attachments. These are not my feelings. So not you have revealed something about yourself instead when you meant to attack me, subtly but an attack none the less. (Get the siblings squabbling and the heat is off me.)This is what the narcissist does to protect the object. In your case the object is TLP.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Abbey- my thinking is not confused. You are highly offensive. My thinking is very simple. People need to interact with other people. It is more likely that one will damage people using elaborate constructions one has learned from a book than using their selves and communicating. In America, people do not know how to talk to, treat, or regard the mentally ill. This robs the mentally ill of many important things. Although the desire to not talk to the mentally ill may spring from taking an interest in their well being and feeling not qualified to deal with them, this is wrong. You were putting forth a position that one must know how to properly talk to a mentally ill person. I'm telling you that in principle you are wrong. I am also telling you that in this specific instance--- Jonny--- you are wrong. You also, through all this writing, are not owning your own shit. I don't hear the voice of an authentic self and I do not hear feelings. This tells me you are full of shit. Yet here you are, going after me. It's kind of dumb, and you are a smart person.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Telling someone to fuck off or suck my dick is not what I mean by expressing aggression but it is a primitive start.
("I have more than told Alone what I think of him ad infinum. I think there was a fuck you and a few other things. I may have called him a piece of shit and I may have told him I have a little dick he can suck. He gets it, trust me.")
So you thought you were helping the rest of the people here express themselves, did you? I didn't read you that way but maybe others did.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 3:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You say you are not the therapist here, but you go after me and my lack of anger. Look- I'm not currently mad at Alone. I'm freshly vented, I vent all the time, it gets tiring and I just need a break. I'll get mad later I promise. But as far as protecting the object, if that is what I am doing, then I am okay with it. More than okay. I'm thrilled. Really. It is alright. I kinda like it. I embrace my narcissism for whatever happiness it can give me. Don't worry about it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Perhaps I should have said that your language and your conceptual understanding is confused. Far more linguistically confusing than jonny BTW. You are not simple, you are very complicated. Not complex, complicated. This is not the place to deal with all this. I am not going to go there. As for feelings I basically have feelings only for jonny in this place. The rest of you I don't know well enough. To the extent a person communicates with ready-mades and sound bites I pretty must don't tangle with anymore. I'm just not there. It's all in the Dominating Discourse of the classical Hegelian Dialectic and it will go on for another 300 years back and forth. Not interested. It is this language, this thinking that has gotten this planet where it is, Just as the medical discourse in George Washington's time allowed his doctors to bleed him with leeches when he needed all his blood for himself.
Discourses kill. Let me say it again. DISCOURSES KILL.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm kind of excited to think I have an object to protect. that's a bit of a shift for me. By which i mean seismatic. What else is wrong with me? Seriously. I'm psyched. Do you see anything else? Listen- if i have issues with Alone that means I'm not having them with my family so that is an improvement. In my family, everything is static and nothing moves. You see? So even if Alone goes away, he got me away from my family, and that is inherently good. there's more hope in this place than in that place. You see?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(" You were putting forth a position that one must know how to properly talk to a mentally ill person. I'm telling you that in principle you are wrong. I am also telling you that in this specific instance--- Jonny--- you are wrong.")
You MUST know how to talk to their unconscious fantasy. And for you to tell me that I am wrong about jonny, please, where is that at. ONLY JONNY CAN SAY what is wrong for him about what I said. You are not his mother. I know you know this, so why are you communicating to him (just because he is not here at the moment does not mean you are not communicating to him)in a language that reveals you see yourself as his mother. Those are your induced feelings that you have for jonny. You want to protect him and nurture him here. Ask him if that is helpful for you to act on those feelings with him. What does JONNY want. Ask him.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
abbeysbrooks, you wrote two comments about missy protecting TLP and not letting anyone have rage and defending the object and etc...
I hadn't read her comments so I went up to find all of these things Missy's done and she says "He wants to retire and be in the sun"
Isn't that what most people want to do? I mean people can rage if they want to, but if this blog has become your mother or father than that's not really the author's fault, not is there anyway the author could actually fill anyone's desire for him to be a permanent mother or father to them through this blog.
I would imagine he has carried many suffering people in his work and his life (and it is part of why his spirits get so dark, this world is full of pain, those with the heart to see it get wounded and have to create walls). Personally, I hope he goes to the beach and the sun warms his spirits and he lives happily ever after. Maybe even finds happiness in love after all and such. If not, gets a lot of massages and enjoys playing golf and things. The author of this blog appears to have expressed a lot of pain and a lot of desire to understand the world and face the difficult aspects of life and human behavior and himself. The human mind can only take so much of that before it turns too dark to do much good.
I think it would likely do him a world of good to shake things up a bit and probably readers of this blog who have become attached like Harlows little monkeys to the rags that represent their absent mothers. This is a blog. There is a dude who writes, often kind of nutty stuff, sometimes thoughtful, but often not the stuff of "life guidance" more "hey think about stuff, here's some free form ideas from my head". I think he has a huge amount of love within him which attracts many, but part of the fact he projects that is that his love is protected, it doesn't go to everyone. Unlike many therapist/neuropsych types he is willing to judge people. People crave that. To be judged and told you are good enough by someone very picky. Why do people line up for Simon Cowells insults (in hopes of his praise)? "Am I a narcissist? Am I loving enough? Am I a good person?"
The person who writes this blog can't tell you if you're a good person. If you don't know how to be a good person, your next step is to contemplate, read, consult and design your own action plan of what you believe a good person does and go about doing that. When you know you are a good person, because you DO what a good person does, you don't need to ask. You might find people in your life whose praise you seek because they do good deeds and you look up to them, but when they offer it to you, you will be able to receive it because you will know you have done the work of being the kind of person you really think you should be. Their praise will not be telling you who you are, but the icing on the cake, of being acknowledged by a fellow person who does good in the world. Which is indeed a wonderful feeling. Act such that when you meet the sort of person you would want praise from, they would have reason to see your deeds as praiseworthy.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You wrote all this on an assumption that missy was telling the truth when in fact missy made up a lie. For whatever reason. How do you feel about that?
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh caught up with the comments, lol, Missy. I wanted to think of him on the beach too. You goof.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Just fantasize to rationalize a disappearance that seems too long.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Personally? I wonder the real reasons people are invested in the things they're saying right now. I don't understand this conversation at all and think most of you are nutso (including myself.)
I wish you all lot's of love and hopefully time at the beach. Man this is all really making me want to be at the beach, mostly.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 24, 2013 4:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If this was real life and the therapist just cut you off or disappeared, then of course this would not be good for the patient. But in this case, everything exists in metaphor. IF it's the case that TLP is gone, then he has metaphorically died so the reader can mourn and then hopefully move on in some way. I think a lot of people are drawn to this site as a way to avoid change (while still feeling like we are doing something positive), waiting for the next post to come out so they can find that hidden gem in there that they've been looking for. But they basically just keep on searching, feeling like they are making progress but skipping over the parts that they really needed to pay attention to. The next post will have the answer I'm looking for, that piece of insight that will get me to change, etc, etc. That's why I thought the ego epidemic post was relevant:
"Help me, please, I think I'm a narcissist. What do I do?"There are a hundred correct answers, yet all of them useless, all of them will fail precisely because you want to hear them.
There's only one that's universally effective, I've said it before and no one liked it. This is step 1: fake it.
You'll say: but this isn't a treatment, this doesn't make a real change in me, this isn't going to make me less of a narcissist if I'm faking!
All of those answers are the narcissism talking. All of those answers miss the point: your treatment isn't for you, it's for everyone else.
If you do not understand this, repeat step 1.
Of course this is just speculation, and he might post another thing tomorrow as if nothing happened. I have noticed though that over the years he would rarely let more than a few weeks go by between posts, and usually he would post anywhere from 4-6 things a month, so a pattern has developed. Could be burnout, running out of things to say, too busy, whatever. But it sure would be a fitting way to go out in my opinion, and a really good way to effect change via this format, since the last psychiatrist is the ultimately the reader. By leaving, he is saying: "See what I wrote? Read it again."
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 8:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think people assuming this blog is group therapy are projecting too much about the importance of the blog to TLP. How do you know this blog matters to him/her? How do you know these posts are meant to help anybody other then himself? It seems a bit strange to assume that the person you don't know is writing the blog as therapy for you and is deliberately not making new posts to do some sort of internet group therapy for you.
The problem for someone doing "internet group therapy" on a blog is that a blog comment section isn't a room. People come and go, trolls find a discussion and decide that they want to throw firebombs, and of course, being the internet, no one is telling the truth anyway.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 12:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you might be assuming a bit too much of group therapy in the real world to be so critical of group therapy on the internet. Although i do know that often when people do professional therapy online sometimes webcams are required to make sure it's the same person every time.
I think one problem with designating it as therapy is simply that not very many of the people here appear to be in individual therapy, which puts an unfair burden on people who are.
I do think that one major problem with Alone doing this blog that he must have addressed is simply that if he calls himself a psychiatrist he has a higher burden onm him on some ways than if he does not; one has the right to expect more. Just exactly what that burden might be is debatable. I realize everyone is now going to have a cow I said that, but I stand by it. If he were a nurse or any other professional identified as such he would have a higher burden if he gave us advice while sitting on a crosstown bus and so I think the fact it is the internet does not cancel that expectation.
People look for therapy in many environments all the time- from literature, art work, exercise groups and so saying this is not group therapy or therapy opens up the issue, to me, of: what isn't potential therapy???
I think most readers have realisitic expectations though, not crazy ones. I really do. and I very definitely do not think he should have any obligation to read or respond to the comments section at all- I think that is an unfair buden that is not promised or implied and so that would be one definite limitation.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 12:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Perhaps a blog full of (admittedly fascinating) speculative/anecdotal articles on media, politics and psychiatry shouldn't be taken as professional advice but simply the opinions - take it or leave it - of one "psychiatrist"?
Why do people suddenly forget the nature of the blog format when it serves the needs of their argument?
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 1:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Very well said. When you "say" you are a psychiatrist you create those expectations that you will show at least a minimum of professionalism. that you won't think saying "fuck you" is expressing aggression in anything more than a primitive communication. Being a therapist is not something you throw off with your coat when you go out of the office. Hopefully it is a way of being that becomes you as you mature in the profession. Hopefully. I have known a few - more than a few- like that.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 1:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know this blog is important to TLP because of the care taken in the writing of it and its presentation. When you do a serious blog, you do have a responsibility to monitor it in some way. It needs care, like the garden as Chance might say.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 2:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey, you are a member of the ruling class. Being part of shit like versobooks doesn't make you an outsider or an intellectual, it makes you one of the elite. Thus, you deserve and will get mockery - especially for your absurd hierophantic posts throughout this thread. What you call "nasty" I call saeva indignatio.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 2:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
ME? LOL! Elite!!!! I read Verso and semiotext(e) publishers along with many many others. I don't have anything published by them. Would that I did but I don't write in their style although I write about the same things as some of their authors. I guess you don't read too well tho huh. Not a question.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 2:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As for jonny, a sample: "I'd been using my mind to protect myself from the erect cocks of Jesus Christ since I was 5."
When you are sane (or not as insane as most), you use personal examples from your own history to reveal mistakes made so that others who are perceptive enough can avoid making those same mistakes. This is the opposite of what insane people do; they look for validation constantly. "Everyone, look at ME. Listen to ME. Validate ME. ME ME ME!"
When you are sane (or not as insane as most), you make statements that the sane perceive correctly and which the insane perceive incorrectly using their own corrupted perception which they superimpose onto everything you say. It's incredibly revealing of their insanity.
When I say I've been using my mind to protect myself from the primary purpose for religion's popularity (or mere existence), I'm not talking about my personal history; I'm talking about billions of children who are presently in the same position. I'm talking about the billions of children who will be in that same position in the future because of demented, worthless, disposal, inhumane, gutter trash like PN.
I'd offer more, but he basically goes on like this as if posting on the internet was a therapy session. The boy ain't right.
You offer nothing because you haven't the capacity. This is why you review. You haven't the capacity to produce or contribute anything of value.
His comments have the undeniable appeal of a ten car pileup.
The calling card of the insane. She believes the world and everyone in it exists solely to appeal to her and/or entertain her. When she is not impressed, she disapproves. When she disapproves, she expresses one of her opinionated reviews, which are entirely limited to her expressing her corrupted and tell-tale feelings which are tantamount to a disclosure of her batshit insanity.
Lady, I do not write to appeal to you. If you find what I write to be unappealing, go tell your children about it. Express yourself like this and I'll illuminate your insanity every time.
I'd ask him to tell us all where religion touched him, but dear God he'd probably do it.
I'll tell you were religion has touched me.
Billions of girls who imagine that their biological desires coded into them by natural selection are somehow shameful, embarrassing, devaluing, dirty, wrong and sinful.
"Go, and exist no more."
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 3:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now do you really think that anyone who can express themselves like this needs any kind of help or Mommying. Or therapy. It is a rephrasing of Foucault's 1974-74 Lecturs on Abnormal given at the College de Franced and more detailed in his Madness and Civilization.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 3:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(pause). "In a word?.....both of you need all kinds of help, yes."
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 3:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I had a friend who used to love makeup until her boyfriend told her that he didn't like her with makeup on because her natural beauty was more attractive. She always thought this was very sweet, but to me it always seemed perverse. Was her natural beauty like Superman, and makeup her Kryptonite? Seemed more insulting than anything that he would say she's MORE beautiful without makeup, as if her beauty to him was dependent on so transient a thing.
I'm going to tell a personal story here that may or may not have value (but of course I'm quite certain it would, at least to Brandon).
When I was 24, I hooked up with this girl and she was obsessed with cosmetics (she actually now owns a successful beauty salon in Sydney). There was a lot to like about her, but I was probably more attracted to her personality and sense of humour and wit than her aesthetic appeal. Everyone else seemed to think she was stunning, but I didn't really see it.
She would spend (I kid you not) 2-3 hours per day minimum on her cosmetics routine. At first I found it amusing, if not quite endearing but it quickly became an annoyance that threatened to become intolerable. She had moved in with me and it was just ridiculous; before she could sleep, she had to remove all the chemicals and replace them with new chemicals for overnight. This took her over an hour every night, and she had to concentrate so hard she was unable to hold a conversation. I'd ask her questions and she'd respond with nonsense answers; clearly she wasn't listening. As it was so boring watching her do this every single night, I'd fall asleep long before she'd completed the interminable process. I don't like being woken up. Wake me up and you won't likely do it again.
Every morning, I'd wake to see her at the end of my bed on the carpet doing her daily 90 minute routine to put all the chemicals back on. After a fortnight or three weeks of this, I was on the brink of dumping her. It was just too ridiculous. At one point, I asked her why she bothered as if it were up to me, I'd rather she spent the three hours with me rather than being lost in her own little world of beauty enhancing. She brushed off my query and mildly offended that my opinion was worthless, I resolved to dump her the next day.
The next morning I was surprised to discover she was still sleeping. It was the first time that had ever happened. Jumping out of bed, I woke her up and she looked up with bleary eyes, hair absolutely chaotic and frazzled and looking probably the worst she could have ever imagined. I was horrified.
I swear on my life I raced to the bathroom to dry-retch as a result of what I'd seen. I felt sick, nauseous, terrified and I was physically shaking. I felt like death; which, somewhat ironically, was kind of appropriate.
You see, when idiots fall in love, they get to enjoy the delusion and the temporary high and that is merely a function of their inferior capacity to process future / inevitable events. When non-idiots fall in love, they immediately skip forward to the inevitable misery, agony and pain.
She wasn't ugly without her 90 minute morning beauty cosmetic-application routine; on the contrary.
With the possible exception of my baby sister, I'd never seen anything so cute and adorable in my entire life. I was in utterly, hopelessly, instantly - tragically - in love.
And no one sane is ever going to be into that.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 4:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny and Abbey (and don't forget Foucault, can't forget Foucault, ever....)song:
Of my desires, whereat I weep and sing,
In joy and woe, as in a doubtful case.
For my sweet thoughts sometime do pleasure bring;
But by and by, the cause of my disease
Gives me a pang, that inwardly doth sting,
When that I think what grief it is again,
To live and lack the thing should rid my pain.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 4:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You write in garbled language so confusing it would take me all day to sort it out and deconstruct it, and no one can understand your youtube presentations and I am in need of help! LOL!
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 4:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
On Masha Tupitsyn's blog Love Dog:
http://mashatupitsyn.tumblr.com/post/42982484371/real-work
Real Work
This is really it. This is all it’s ever been about for me.
“…What we think of as contradictions are actually complementary. Maybe this was our real work, to build bridges across the chasm of every dialectic. We thought differences were important and yet, at the same time, realized that the excessive emphasis on difference, resulting in the complete fragmentation of all social interaction, continued to make meaningful forward movement impossible. Divisions had become the rule that made all other rules obsolete” (my emphasis).
-Jacob Wren, Revenge Fantasies of The Politically Dispossessed
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 4:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He likes power and control and might consider it a kindness to not be coddled by people treating him in highly specialized, overly careful ways.
I absolutely do not like power and control and I am the only person I know of who only wishes to control themselves. If it were up to me, everyone would only ever do what they want to do without ever feeling obliged or manipulated or indebted or coerced.
As for being coddled, I find it insulting. Give me direct truth or GTFO. I have no need to be cared for, considered, respected or treated with kid gloves or sensitivity. I am 100% certain that a great deal of the problems in this world is due to mothers who (frankly, rather dubiously) treat their children to this demented, Self-eroding, deceitful coddling.
Those children then fall apart years later when someone says - gasp! - a mean word about them. Awwh. Poor diddums.
nb. what is considered mean to the emotionally insane who imagine words can hurt them like sticks and stones is usually nothing more than simple truth.
_________________
As to whether or not I'm insane, I admit I am largely ambivalent. I am 100% certain that the only human beings on the planet who are completely sane are newborn babies. And they sure as hell don't remain that way for very long when their mothers are batshit insane enough to lie to them, for their sake (of course)!
We are all insane. It's merely a matter of degrees. As insanity is the product of lies told to you by those you trusted to be your mirrors of truth, the truth is that most people are so batshit crazy they're fucking dangerous, anti-social sociopaths.
I'll give you a clue how to spot them. They're unfailingly polite (read: deceptive, for the sake of diplomacy and social cohesion [reread: for the sake of exploitation of those who are stupidly disarmed by the deception of the ostensibly non-rude]).
Call me crazy but there is nothing as rude as lying.
You can call me whatever you like, but there is no logic you can bring to bear against the fact that - if you need to lie - you are vastly, incomprehensibly more insane than I am.
I have no need to deceive. Actually, to the best of my knowledge, I have absolutely no need at all. A writer I only know by his alias actually taught me that. His message was lost on most of you needy sociopaths who imagine that Narcissus could somehow be in the wrong by simply rejecting the unsolicited imposition of the needy Echo's and needy Liriope-like mothers of the world.
I'm not sure if you'd know the anonymous writer I'm referring to. He writes under the pseudonym Alone. I'd be willing to wager that, like Narcissus, Alone also has no need at all and that is why, like Narcissus, he chooses to be alone.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 4:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In The Preparation of the Novel, a collection of lectures delivered at a defining moment in Roland Barthes’s career (and completed just weeks before his death), the critic spoke of his struggle to discover a different way of writing and a new approach to life. The Neutral preceded this work, containing Barthes’s challenge to the classic oppositions of Western thought and his effort to establish new pathways of meaning. How to Live Together predates both of these achievements, a series of lectures exploring solitude and the degree of contact necessary for individuals to exist and create at their own pace. A distinct project that sets the tone for his subsequent lectures, How to Live Together is a key introduction to Barthes’s pedagogical methods and critical worldview.
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13616-7/how-to-live-together
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 5:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Zizek takes on Kathryn Bigelow and Zero Dark 30 on torture:
“Here is how, in a letter to the LA Times, Kathryn Bigelow justified Zero Dark Thirty’s depicting of the torture methods used by government agents to catch and kill Osama bin Laden:
‘Those of us who work in the arts know that depiction is not endorsement. If it was, no artist would be able to paint inhumane practices, no author could write about them, and no filmmaker could delve into the thorny subjects of our time.’
Really? One doesn’t need to be a moralist, or naive about the urgencies of fighting terrorist attacks, to think that torturing a human being is in itself something so profoundly shattering that to depict it neutrally – ie to neutralise this shattering dimension – is already a kind of endorsement.
Imagine a documentary that depicted the Holocaust in a cool, disinterested way as a big industrial-logistic operation, focusing on the technical problems involved (transport, disposal of the bodies, preventing panic among the prisoners to be gassed). Such a film would either embody a deeply immoral fascination with its topic, or it would count on the obscene neutrality of its style to engender dismay and horror in spectators. Where is Bigelow here?
More: http://mashatupitsyn.tumblr.com/post/41789694111/guts-and-glory
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 5:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://mashatupitsyn.tumblr.com/post/41287961696/lost-worlds
“As in the mid-twentieth century, one of the things we need to work out for ourselves is a true definition of happiness. Are we being duped by gentrified happiness, and can we find pleasure in something more complex, more multi-dimensional, and therefore more dynamic? Can we be happy with uncomfortable awareness that other people are real? Gentrification replaces most people’s experiences with the perceptions of the privileged and calls for reality…What is happiness, how to tell the truth and still have it?…Gentrified happiness is often available to us in return for collusion with injustice.”
-Sarah Schulman, The Gentrification of the Mind: Witness to a Lost Imagination
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 5:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Those who create 'systems' in psychoanalysis, their most ardent followers, and those who revel in presenting, discussing, and being discussed at psychoanalytic conferences appear, almost without exception, to be in headlong flight from profound childhood depression.
David Klugman and George Atwood
(Or any kind of systems, overly attentive to systems of how things *should* be as opposed to how they are, and finding what is right with that).
"I have to police and re-order the world and how everyone lives to feel safe!.......But I'll be the first person to call *you* a nazi!"
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 5:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Adam Phillips: “People become real to us by frustrating us. If they don’t frustrate us they are merely figures of fantasy.”
http://mashatupitsyn.tumblr.com/post/40879102664/four-quotes
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 5:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
“To have discernment (precision in perception)”
This applies to writing as well. To how and why we do things.
“Not beautiful photography, not beautiful pictures, but rather necessary pictures, necessary photography.”
-Robert Bresson
http://mashatupitsyn.tumblr.com/post/40782430169/to-have-discernment-precision-in-perception
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 5:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree. Theory is always used this way. Turn it into a manufacturing process and sell it. Why Lacan disbanded his entire school before he died. No endless proliferation for him as has been done with Freud. Thanks for bringing this up.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 6:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In Psychology today Oct. 1974 John Holt published an essay from his most recent book at the time ESCAPE FROM CHILDHOOD, 1974:Stimulus/Response: Slave and Superpet
Some quotes:Most people who talk angrily about saving the family or bringing back the virtues of the family do not see it as an instrument of growth and freedom but of dominance and slavery.
There can be no adequate protection against the abuse of authority, by parents or the state, except to give the victim the right to escape it.
More: http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2013/02/saving-mackenzie-foy-from-lolita-land.html
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 6:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here jonny. Masha Tupitsyn's twitter. I guess she needs therapy too. Better tell Raylene. Masha Tupitsyn @lifeasweshowit
@HoumanBarekat Exactly. That's the world now--conceited sociopaths.
View conversation
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 7:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think there’s something useful in looking at these people and seeing the extent to which luck and base motivations can get you to the same place that you’ve been raised your whole life to believe that if you just work hard enough, America will reward you. Most of the time it won’t. Often it seems like success comes not so much from their hard work as from profound psychopathic tendencies.
http://believermag.tumblr.com/post/39743808080/the-age-of-celebrity-sex-tapes-and-execution-tapes-an
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 7:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This will ongoing debate and frustration for some people since many people still rely on this.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 25, 2013 8:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Masha Tupitsyn @lifeasweshowit
@kellya309 I always say we live in a sociopathic culture.
https://twitter.com/lifeasweshowit
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 2:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Has TLP left or is TLP in classic analytic mode and just keeping silent. The thread is continuing and that's what you want when you work with a group. People are talking and expressing their feelings.
You're making assumptions about Alone that I am all but certain are utterly flawed. He doesn't care. Why doesn't he care? He's brighter than we are. I doubt he's left and I doubt he's in analytic mode. He doesn't read the comments because we're all basically insane. He used to engage his readers back in 2008 and I'm not sure when he stopped doing that but I would bet a great deal of money on the proposition that he felt pretty stupid for attempting to communicate with those who are incommunicado.
So is TLP keeping silent or has TLP left the room permanently? Just the short time I have been here I have noticed that people attack each other. If TLP is doing this blog as a way to sort of conduct therapy and sort of not to conduct therapy, but then his credentials have been placed up front, so evidently that is part of it.
I don't believe Alone is conducting therapy. I believe he is Narcisssus staring into the mirror that doesn't lie and reflects an image that is far too magical to simply give up hope. He's staring into Utopia; a world without need. This blog is merely his contribution to the cause.
The facilitator of the group has ONE very important role.1. To NOT let the members attack each other.
What makes you presume Alone is a facilitator. He's just laying down truth. If you can see it, great. If you can't see it, he has other advice for you that should limit the damage you do to yourself and others.
"If you're reading it, it's for you."
I believe this is Alone's way of saying you're not longer reading the truth. You're in the damage limitation section. This is pure, nearly baseless intuitive speculation on my part.
TLP at this point in this thread anyway has lost control. TLP doesn't know what to do because TLP has not deflected the aggression on himself in a timely way. Not the anxiety about his whereabouts are beginning to surface.
What makes you think Alone cares about control? Have you ever seen him care to control the debate? If you're not looking to control, it's impossible to lose control.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 4:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not assuming very much. You have the advantage of having been here a long time. Since 08? That's perseverance. How have you managed that? You're probably right about alone but I wouldn't know. Am reading Houellebecq tonight The Map and The Territory. Seems fitting somehow. Did you read Masha's links? I think you would like SOME of her.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 10:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It would be great if Alone disappeared forever. He's getting too popular and I don't mean that in the "he's my secret!" kind of way. Eventually he'll just be another brand for people to hand-wave away or dismiss because of x and y. His criticism of the Occupy movement was that it gave itself to the media, making it impotent. TLP will soon enter the reblog machine, making it impotent.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 11:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
what you mean about popularity not being in the "he's my secret" vein is something I do not understand. But the very idea of something becoming outdated and needing to be ritualistically thrown out for something new to foster is perhaps the ultimate statement itself of everything being a brand. Duh. Do you think before you speak?
Some things are classic and endure. I think perhaps Alone is in this camp.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 12:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not assuming very much. You have the advantage of having been here a long time. Since 08? That's perseverance. How have you managed that?
The first article I read on this blog was the one where Alone said "Isn't it remarkable how everything is internalised except for blame" (paraphrased). And I realised I had a problem with blame. I was only glancing at a couple old posts and was surprised and then suddenly not surprised to note that Alone used to engage commenters. Used to.
________
Raylene's point about beauty being a curse deserves a great deal more discussion than it received. It holds true across the board for everything, not just aesthetic appeal. You're either resented or you're idolised and stalked and then if you reject your idol-worshippers....
There is crazy and then then there is what they do when they imagine they are you only to discover you don't feel the same way.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 1:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not implying anything about being "outdated" or TLP needing to be replaced, I'm referencing an infrastructure where entrance guarantees the stripping of impact. An infrastructure where you have no choice of whether or not you want to enter. Content aggregators like Reddit and Tumblr, for example, do more to take potency away and replace it with a mental symbol of either "like" or "dislike" based upon what the infrastructure (upvotes/reblogs) thinks about it. Popularity in this respect will only result in people paying less attention to the content and more attention to the fact that it's coming from the TLP brand which will result in conversations like: "Hey, isn't it kind of interesting how some people view make up as self-empowering?" responded with the predetermined "You just read that on The Last Psychiatrist, that guy's an idiot" and the conversation just will have been circumvented.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 2:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
("There is crazy and then then there is what they do when they imagine they are you only to discover you don't feel the same way.")
And this is what is known as narcissistic projection. In the closed world of analysis it becomes labeled "the transference."
When anyone is projected on like this I always think of Jung who said all was projection, and that was what you worked with.
Yes many of these people project all over the place. there is no way to logically go through each one to explain it to them. If that were the way it works, then that's what Freud would have done. They were sent to Freud because it hadn't worked with his patients and they referred them to him because they were at the end of their bag of tricks. What Freud did that was unprecedented was: HE LISTENED.
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 2:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The assumption you are making Raylene is that the world is continuous, progressive, starting from an origin and rolling away into the horizon. It is the dying Dominating Discourse of history. The post modern philosophical thinking on this sides with modern physics, The world is ruled by Events and maybe always was. The perception of time is crucial here. In primitive times time was unending, so long drawn out and uneventful that it took thousands of years for cause and effect to begin to be perceived, to connect sex and pregnancy and babies.
Events come out of nowhere. They cannot be anticipated, They do not fall under the rule of cause and effect, prediction and control. To keep the classical one turns to Baudrillard and his symbolic Exchange and Death: the Order of Production and the Order of the Symbolic, the Order of Seduction. This is what we see in Jesus who turns the money changers out of the scared Temple. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. In other words keep them separate in your head and life and behavior was what he was saying. the sacred is a different ORDER than the PROFANE. When you mix them up you get a jumble sale. You do this all the time here. An Event is a CUT, a Foucaldian CUT. Then there is before and then there is after. No continuity.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 2:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Like and dislike belong to the classical Hegelian Dialectic of opposites: thesis - antithesis - synthesis - thesis - etc. This is the Dominating Discourse where everything is crunched into he said, she said, etc. A game of ping pong that goes on forever. That's the Discourse here.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 2:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The entire make-up beauty post is waving the red flag in front of the bull symptom. It will polarize women, feminists, men and get a good hot discussion going IN THE DOMINATING DISCOURSE OF THE DIALECTIC where nothing ever can be resolved but which everyone tries to resolve throwing in their opinions etc. It is standard tabloid fare which seems to have interfaced with the minds of everyone in the mass culture. To state the make up issue is erroneous.
Make up is a tiny atom in the Discourse of Simulation, simulated Reality. Just an itty bitty little thing when the topic of a more post modern discourse would be Simulation itself. This is what the movie The Matrix tried to convey and even used Baudrillard's book Simulacra and Simulation in the first 8 minutes as it was in the desk drawer of Keanu Reeves. I was misled at first here when you were using the term Matrix. I thought you knew what the term referred to. I see now you are just sound biting the work. Make up is another issue that is a sound bit, a ready-made.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 2:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Didn't know he bad mouthed the Occupy movement. Here's Zizek on it: http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/2012/03/slavoj-zizek-speaks-at-occupy-wall.html
The strength of Occupy was that it DIDN'T have an agenda. It resulted then in a networking of like minds. It was Occupy Sandy that provided help and relief to the victims of Sandy while the Red Cross, FEMA, and other government agencies and charities were too bureaucratized to do anything quickly. Occupy was on the scene immediately with supplies, shelter, medical aid, volunteer visiting those confined, all of it. They began to be perceived as a political force that was dangerous. The free space they were given was rescinded, etc. But for that brief moment in time the world saw what it took the power to do effectively by solidarity. The way Walesa did it in Poland in Gdansk. EVENTS! Not planning. Spontaneous, in the Order of Seduction not the Order of Production. Our only escape. And Occupy was criticized from the very beginning for not having a cohesive agenda. that my friends would have put it in the inside where the political powers could have dealt with in in the Dialectic of the dominating Discourse, splitting hairs over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 3:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I never used the term "matrix" unless you're referring to somebody else.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 4:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
English makes "you" so difficult. I meant the impersonal "you" not the personal "tu" as in French. But don't you find it interesting that you took it personally. That's what narcissists tend to do. Or not careful readers. Nice warning for you. The universe is telling you something.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 4:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I agree, the reason for the OWS failure is they never caused a problem (since they protest in designated areas) and didn't have a set goal. If they were willing to risk something collectively and get arrested for it (i.e. We will block traffic in and out of Manhattan everyday until X happens and tens of thousands are willing to get arrested for it) then maybe it would have been worthwhile. But very few people are willing to risk anything, especially if the X you are risking your freedom for isn't defined. Really it just turned into an identity massage, something for hip people to refer to for validation: I was at Woodstock, I was at the first Lollapalooza, I was at OWS, etc.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 26, 2013 4:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think it failed. Failure and success are in the Dominating Discourse of the Dialectic and they weren't there. They haven't failed and they weren't trying to succeed. Check my hot link for Zizek.
DeLillo's Cosmopolis explains this very well. The demonstration in the novel is over the top. It is in Cronenberg's film but misunderstood. As "the philosopher" theory analyst Vija Kinski says, quoting Foucault, that the system NEEDS, REQUIRES this opposition. It feeds on it. It strengthens the system. "There is no outside." That's when Eric Packer sees the Burning Man and immediately intuits that this sacrifice is "outside" the system, that the system cannot absorb it. Baudrillard has said that in Symbolic Exchange and Death the terrorist act must be accompanied by the sacrifice of Death. Immolation alone won't do it, but coupled with the act it must be. This was the power of 9-11. Packer then implodes the cyber currency market and shoots himself in the left palm (stigmata) and goes to his assassin to be killed all unknowingly, just letting the world will him. Like Jesus BTW, the historical revolutionary Jesus who was castrated by being turned into organized religion.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 1:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
a propos of Django as an actor empowered by The System: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/movie-review-django-unchained.html
cliffs: blogger discusses "Django" as a White people's anti-slavery revenge flick. but instead of critiquing this as "co-opting the Black Struggle" (paralleling the way Tarantino has appropriated Black culture in his work), blogger considers it legitimate: because many white northerners, and some german immigrants in the South, killed and died to fight slavery.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 3:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I was involved with Occupy to some extent. The problem with it was that while the agenda was incorrectly perceived or incomprehensible to many people, there was actually an extensive agenda, everything but the kitchen sink. maybe it wasn't reaching the mass media comprehensively, but if they had stuck to one simple thing, like getting the top 1% to pay a fair share of taxes, it would have helped. Unfortunately, because Occupy was a movement of progressives, they demanded everything but the kitchen sink- top 1% pay more taxes, more green jobs, support minorities and women better, be better for the environment, and so on and so forth. I bet there's still stuff online all about the list of demands, which I've seen more than once in more than one location.
Look at how popular the stupid tea party movement was. All they wanted was no taxes. It was a hit, despite being stupid- it appealed to something simple and was easy to do- just refuse to vote for more taxes- and as a movement it was probably more successful than Occupy.
I think this may have been because, in part, as Alone points out, something about the trappings of power. I am not sure, because I lack political savvy although I have some political experience, but I think what was behind Occupy in part may have been making a list of demands with the expectation that if you make a lot of demands and let the powers that be whittle them down a bit, you still come out with more than if you only asked for one thing. Because that is how 'the dance' works. I think this was a stupid mistake that would have never been made if (wow- I'm soapboxing) good liberals like Barney Frank were running things, but that's progressives for you. the whole progressive agenda strikes Americans as radical and full of latter-day dirty hippies who don't want to work, and to some extent, frankly, that is true. and as far as Occupy not working- someone said it was because they weren't radical enough- that is patently untrue. people got arrested, plenty of radicalish people were involved, and thousands getting arrested and clogging up the jails in New York would have probably just pissed off the average American. Although i will say, and I hope someone can answer me this, I hadn't been aware previously exactly how high bail can be and how easy it is to break the law just by protesting peacefully. Turns out there are all kinds of rules about protesting, where and when and how, in Chicago where I live. people actually get permits to protest peacefully here- it sounds insane to me. and bail for some people who were arrested was $1000.00 a pop, if you can believe such a thing. I do not know if that bail stuck- i'm sure some lawyers and other fine people were all over it, so maybe not---- but just the idea that it even happened in the first place. So if anyone has anything intelligent to say about this whole permits to protest and all that- fire away.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 4:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I went briefly online to see if I could find a list of demands to illustrate my point, but gave up, because the website was too freaking cluttered with way too much information. But I will say howtooccupy.org appears pretty extensive. It reminded me of Jenny Holzer. Did she say The Revolution Will Be Televised, or was it The Apocalypse?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 4:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Occupy was a rousing success. It spawned Occupy Sandy which addressed untold numbers of people during Sandy. It saved lives, fed people, whatever was needed they tried to address. The bureaucratic agencies were so entangled in their own bureaucracy they were tripping over their chains. It was a monumental example of what is possible. A slap in the face to a government that has no intention of being any different and is simply a simulacrum at this point in time. Progressives are bumbleheads and the right wing is evil and stupid, but stubborn as mules.
As for 1000 in bail. The bail bondsman puts that up for say $100 and it is only forfeited if you don't show up in court. If you don't then the bounty hunters come after you.
Raylene you need to get facts straight in your head when you write.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 4:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OH MY GOD! They are all insane! this is the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life, ever. howtooccupy.org has an entry called 'the Legal Fiction-How They Control Us.' it is basically a conspiracy theorist's wet dream, apparently for masochists for really hate The Man, and we all know that means the white man. Right? Right. That much does not surprise me. But what blows my mind is how elitist these nutbags are. They go into all this crap about how the average person can't understand this little secret ('the legal fiction'). I don't know. Funniest thing ever. I don't know how they can talk conspiracy- aren't they all illuminati? :-D Seriously- it's stuff like this that makes people hate Occupy. they make Sarah Palin look like a model of sanity and calm. Check it out.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 4:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Occupy was successful because it didn't give in to becoming an authoritarian structured group. That was a first. That is what is important about it. Did you read Zizek on it. It's very very short: http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/2012/03/slavoj-zizek-speaks-at-occupy-wall.html
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 9:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OWS did fail for exactly that reason. It was pretend protest -- the demands were more like requests. There's no urgency, and I think it goes back to the same problem -- there is no real need. These were college kids for the most part who could afford to take a few weeks off of work to sit in a drum circle in the park. Compare that to vietnam or civil rights where the people involved NEEDED the change (either because it meant access to better jobs or not being shot in the face for uncle sam) and it's night and day. Vietnam protests by the very people who would be serving, and they weren't afraid to tweak the powers a bit. It wasn't like OWS or anti-Iraq protests -- they didn't stay in a park and camp out, they marched, they disrupted events, and they weren't going to take no for an answer. OWS failed because most of them were college kids on Spring Break, not people who had to get a change or be unemployed and hungry.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 12:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you are right, when it comes to humanitarian efforts re the Hurrican Sandy relief, the OWS movement can be a successful endeavor. But when it comes to issues where they might meet real resistance it's a different story. It's unlikely armed guards would be deployed to "protect" Hurricane Sandy victims from receiving food/supplies from volunteers.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 1:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You have a consistent disdain for college kids, whom you see as both privileged and ineffectual. You seem to have a lot of faith their efforts are all for naught as well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 2:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey you get real resistance from the swat team you are not gonna win. The guerrilla must swim in the sea like a fish - Chairman Mao
OWS did not fail. They couldn't stop humanitarian relief done in a guerrilla mode. that was what infuriated them. All they could do after 30 days or so was take away the buildings they had given them to operate out of and by then nobody was paying attention. But they showed up the Red Cross, The Salvation Army and FEMA as woefully unadaptable.
And the networks it spawned are still viable.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 2:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey Viet Nam was a different time. You can't win the present war with the tactics of the last war. The Draft was a major factor. Without the Draft it wouldn't have reached the proportions it did. It was the first time for that sort of thing that the PILL was available and the protests and posturing were great ways to get laid.
OWS lasted for 1 year outside. Judith Butler spoke there, Zizek sppoke there, Naomi Wolfe spoke there. and many many more as Chomsky and Mailer did during the Viet Nam DC protests. When elec was cut off to the mikes, they invented the human microphone. Lots of wonderful things came out of it. Just not the predictable stupid things the suits and the unimaginative wanted to happen.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 2:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Over 700 people being arrested on the Brooklyn bridge is hardly polite dissent from the cheap seats. Rather, that is what you are doing.
The true horror was that on Oct. 2, after the mass arrests when thousands again poured out into the streets, you and the entire critique a critique crowd stayed home and probably did what you always do. Nothing. Made some comment thread somewhere real exciting I bet. You sure showed them.
I was at Zuccotti and helpful in getting another local occupy going and sustained for months. I'm over 35 with a full time job, several children and healthy. Most of the occupiers I knew had jobs and families. The others were without housing or addicts of one stripe or another. What college kids participated did so as classes, jobs and family obligations allowed.
If TLP has taught me anything, its to seek out the source material for myself. To choose a course of action once determined for myself. Where I cannot be bothered to do so, I accept the tagline as my guide..Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
Which segues nicely into something else this thread has me thinking on. As Alone has related in tidbits throughout, TLP has many articles written all in various stages of complete. However, Alone often is awaiting a return reply or a concrete lead/piece of info from a source. That's what TLP does. And when TLP can't yet speak on a subject, TLP is silent.
Sure TLP tore into the occupy movement for mostly all the right reasons. But in the end TLP's clones suffered the same fate as occupy. Waiting for others (media, a leader, a template, someone else to go first) so that I would not have to make a decision. Safely critique the critique of a already scripted critique and think it an action. Why? Because identity preservation always trumps behavior.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 2:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Great comment. Most of the people here are not challenging the thinking of others. Just arguing back and forth. Watch the ping-pong ball go back and forth! Same old same old.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 2:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Occupy, it is true, would not have to be that great to show up the Red Cross, The Salvation Army (God help us all)or FEMA. I have a FEMA certificate because my last job required it, and it is true they are boggled down in insane government sounding doublespeak- just no common people touch whatsoever. the Red Cross and Salvation Army have always had their problems, a big one of which is the sort of people they attract and retain. Well, that is maybe more the Salvation Army. and their exclusivity and lack of accessibility to normal people is quite deliberate.
the thing is though, Abbey herself is kind of boggled down in her own language issues. for someone who believes in empowerment, presumably for everybody, the language she chooses to express herself is pretty exclusive to a certain group of people, and that would not be the majority of people. I kind of don't pay much attention to her, but if you are into changing the world, it might help if you can speak to it properly. the burden is on the person trying to change things to get the attention and hearts of others- in a sense, you can't have guerilla warfare, it won't work. Which is more or less what I said about Occupy- I find them to be alienating and off-putting, and I say this as someone who was given their materials and communicated with people who were there. I had a real interest. I asked them why their agenda was so congoluted and why they didn't just focus on their 1% paying taxes issue only but didn't get an answer.
Speaking a specialized language has a place. Exclusive things that are spoken have a place- they can feed the spirit, create camaraderie and whatever. that much is true. I'm just literally not sure that place is in politics as a whole.
I kind of wonder if the whole political radical thing just appeals to people who really want to feel like they are part of the elite, the cutting edge, the people who get it. If their off-puttingness is quite deliberate, if unconscious. If more people got it, they wouldn't be so exclusive, thus not as superior (in their own minds). I'm not a big fan of critiquing narcissism because I think a healthy narcissism is important and because i think if you want change within yourself you should work with the facts, work with what is, rather than work from a place of a harsh inner critic. But wanting to feel superior to people is probably slightly narcissistic. I say this not so much as criticism, just more as a friendly heads up. I personally love to feel right about things- that shows up on my personality inventory, i don't like to be wrong. I'm a little vain and a little grandiose. i know it, so i try to enjoy it as much as possible when i am right, but that's me.
this whole thing about accessibility in communication reminds me of lacan, might appeal to Abbey. Interspeak. the thing is, probably to have quality interspeak you need people who are capable of subjectivity. Many people aren't, because they are so boggled down by ideas about how they should be that that becomes the preoccupation, rather than what is. I like to call that the Greek chorus- all the stuff people carry around in their heads that isn't authentically them, but assumes the role of their thoughts and feelings anyway. the Greeks may have had a somewhat similar different interpretation.
If Occupy et al want to be inclusive and value diversity, then they need to appeal to people who are capable of subjectivity- not just intellectuals, progressives, radicals.
that sort of illustrated teh point, i guess that the political is personal. Although i think when people say it they generally mean that personal choices have an impact on the environment. I am saying what one carries around in one's head has a profound impact on everything including the political.
wow- i successfully just boggled myself. sad, so sad- I'm boggled and empty now.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 2:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
there is a lot to be said for commenting on a thread, however thoughtlessly. even blowing off steam can help clear the mind. not always, but it can. even if it is drivel, another person might read it and find a kindred spirit and feel, for a bit, closer to some other person, find the magic of relating to someone they don't even know in a powerful way.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 3:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Look I've given you many links to catch you up to speed. You say you don't want to read long things and then you write comments that are long boring, monotonous, gray prose. You are stuck in a dying Discourse and you don't want to change. If I speak to you at your level then I have to enter your Discourse because that's the discourse you think in. I am not original in saying this. Read Foucault's The Order of Things. He writes about difficult subjects in an elegant and hypnotically beautiful prose. In fact he has been criticized for writing too perfectly.
If all those humanitarian bureaucracies are so easy to show up THEN WHY THE FUG HAS IT TAKEN SO LONG FOR A GROUP TO SHOW THEM UP! Occupy has been the only one to do that. To render them obsolete.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 3:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's a transcript of the Chomsky/Foucault debate on Human Nature: Justice Versus Power. Two sophisticated linguists take each other on. It's on youtube now in dutch/English/French but no subtitles as yet.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 3:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Actually this is a tumblr essay on the above blog post that is just wonderful and funny. http://katespencer.tumblr.com/post/12199891175/why-kristen-stewart-matters-a-screed-about-girls-role
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 3:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To myself for the above link. Here's the title:Why Kristen Stewart Matters: A Screed About Girls, Role Models And Tearing Down Those Who Are Different
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 3:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/27/occupy-wall-street-and-the-significance-of-political-slogans/
("As the OWS phenomenon spread to cities and towns in the United States and then the world, the objects of the protestors’ scorn and anger increased geometrically—all those who oppressed the 99%: police, bankers, landlords, employers, universities, politicians, the media, and the military. In response, the powers that be began a coordinated campaign to slander and suppress what had the potential to disrupt both production and commerce. Ultimately, OWS encampments were closed, mainly by police force, but OWS-inspired struggles live on, and the memory of what happened is very much alive.")
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 6:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's a monumental amount of blabber but Foucault is more correct - rather surprisingly - than Chomsky (who has a remarkable gift for being correct). But not in this instance.
Chomsky Let's think again of a human child, who has in his mind some schematism that determines the kind of language he can learn. Okay. And then, given experience, he very quickly knows the language, of which this experience is a part, or in which it is included. Now this is a normal act; that is, it's an act of normal intelligence, but it's a highly creative act. If a Martian were to look at this process of acquiring this vast and complicated and intricate system of knowledge on the basis of this ridiculously small quantity of data, he would think of it as an immense act of invention and creation. In fact, a Martian would, I think, consider it as much of an achievement as the invention of, let's say, any aspect of a physical theory on the basis of the data that was presented to the physicist. However, if this hypothetical Martian were then to observe that every normal human child immediately carries out this creative act and they all do it in the same way and without any difficulty, whereas it takes centuries of genius to slowly carry out the creative act of going from evidence to a scientific theory, then this Martian would, if he were rational, conclude that the structure of the knowledge that is acquired in the case of language is basically internal to the human mind; whereas the structure of physics is not, in so direct a way, internal to the human mind. Our minds are not constructed so that when we look at the phenomena of the world theoretical physics comes forth, and we write it down and produce it; that's not the way our minds are constructed.
Nonsense. That's exactly the way our minds are constructed.
A rational Martian would immediately isolate the variables that allow billions of human children to achieve such a mind-blowing phenomena (learning a language) but then, in the case of 99.9% of them, fail to achieve anything remotely creative or profound or impressive (let alone as impressive) for the rest of their lives.
A rational Martian would study the immediate period of time that follows children achieving this remarkable feat (communication) and seek to identify what went wrong (so to speak). A rational Martian would want to know why human minds capable of something so stupendous are then prevented from repeating or emulating it.
And what the rational Martian would discover is that the problem with children learning to communicate is that they are then easily lied to by those they trust.
One lie. One lie accepted as truth is all that is required to corrupt that child's perception of everything for the rest of his/her life. Just one lie and it's largely Game Over for that mind.
But children are not told one lie. Every single thing they are told is a lie, even when a thing is true (in isolation).
It is perhaps those isolated truths which are the most damaging lies of all.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 8:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I refute OWS thus:
WHAT HAVE THEY CHANGED?
The Tea Party changed an entire debate, they've elected candidates, they've taken control of the government to such a degree that they're a force to be reckoned with -- any politician who proposes a tax increase will probably be kicked out in the next primary.
OWS? Sure a few guys got arrested, but is anybody AFRAID of them? If they don't get their way, is anybody going to lose their job? Who have they put in office? What is it that politicians will not talk about let alone do lest they incur the wrath of OWS?
And even in the case of Vietnam protests, they managed to make actual progress. People changed their minds about the war -- they started out supporting it and ended up opposing it.
That's why I don't think a bunch of street theater antics and whining by fairly well off college students on break amount to much -- nothing much is changing. And it's not changing because they aren't doing much to protest. It's not much of a movement, and so far their biggest achievement is getting evicted from a city park in New York. That's street theater.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 8:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree with you that perhaps children's learning ability should continue for more years than it does. Of course, I don't think--- this may be called plasticity?--their brain development doesn't continue in the same way throughout the life span. But still, I think factors of why children don't learn as easily after those first few years of life should be looked at in terms of somethings other than brain development. i also think developmental stages should be looked at in later years, and not much seems to be happening there. It's only been fairly recently, with more premie babies surviving at lower weights and earlier stages of birth that they're started to understand much about how they (young babies) develop. when i was born at 2 lbs in 1970, they knew nothing.
so, i like your post but i wish you would be clear on what lies specifically children are being told and what this one isolated truth is they, or you, are being told or have been told. Please. It might be a sad thing but I have a feeling it is good stuff, valuable stuff to know.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 8:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I glanced at this article, what an ambivalent article. I like kristin stewart and I have a 16 year old, god help me. the blogger speaks lovingly of kristen Stewart's alternative whateverwhatever quality (not smiling, wearing sneakers, trying to be intelligent and deep in Hollywood) as if they are all good things and that the problem is with these other people who have a problem with kristin Stewart's quality of otherness. then the blogger hastens to add that kristin Stewart actually does smile, is sweet, as if to say: and besides! You guys, she's not all that different!
this sounds quintessentially female to me, ambivalent, taking all sides, any sides, all over the place.
But Perhaps the real problem is just, bloggers and journalists, making issues where nobody else would have one. Look at Greta Garbo. she wasn't a smiley, chatty Cathy, but she did just fine. and this was back in feminism's dark ages (my God, how did she do it? I'm being facetious. she just did it, that's how).
Is there any bona fide issue here?
"You wouldn't say that to a man!"
Oh, God.
It's so weird: we have to make sure even misfits fit in, because we're feminists, and even while we're say it is supercool to do your own thing and not fit in, in the next breath we'll try to say that after all you're like everybody else.
who gives a shit? probably not Kristin stewart.
also what is funny is how she as a feminist is trashing on so many other women in Hollywood implicitly by trying to make kristin feel included by praising her intelligence, thereby implying actresses are shallow and stupid.
The day i would need another woman to defend me as a woman- that would be a very dark day. But i don't think kristin Stewart needs that. i think this lady--- er, woman--- just drummed this up to sell her work.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 9:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stewart has been under the gun for 5 years now for not being a Hollywood clone. she also says things that are "out of the Hollywood Discourse" of what you say when you are interviewed or promoting a film - in this case the Twilight films. She is loved because she wears what she wants to except when she is being paid to "look hot" on a red carpet. And then she looks very hot. She also communicates with her choice of attire much as Helena Bonham Carter does. In other words neither of these actresses wear something that says "look how beautiful I am" but rather to say something else. They wear "floating signifiers".
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 9:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is Foucault 1971 one year after his first major book The Order of Things. He will change much in the next 15 years before he dies and he will change the way ALL human behavioral studies are studied.
He rarely ever did these interviews where one theorist is pitted against another on a topic like a political debate. He was not a polemicist. He did not develop theories. He rather as he said, offered a toolchest to look at art,history, science,psychology,language, etc. In the excerpts jonny posted you can see the different language meme used by both. Chomsky is already on his way out and his is a major gifted and genius of an intelligence.
BUT the important part in this posted comment is Foucault is already looking at the CUT. This was his great gift. And in his earlier work you can see it. It is Nietzsche's influence, Nietzsche's method of genealogy that is being applied to other things than the existence of a god. The CUT he intuitively sees here is that after this massive accomplishment of the child, something abrupt happens. And it is THE LIE that happens. It resonates with what Graham Greene said about Catholicism. He underwent serious instruction as he wanted to marry a woman who was Catholic and she wouldn't marry him unless he converted. So he began instruction and fought it at every step of the way before he accepted it. He said later that you cannot question one brick of this instruction to deny it, without the whole edifice crumbling down. This is the kind of thing Foucault is saying here.
Lies: God; Santa Claus; Pretend happiness at going to see Grandma; be polite even when you hate someone; smile and say thank you. whatever. All socially accepted ways to teach children to lie. Tell the truth and you can get in real trouble. The meaning of The Emperor Has No clothes story. Remember?
Foucault will abolish development, progressive history, the progressive steps of development of the world, progression in the human sciences to place the Event in its place, coming from nowhere, out of the blue, un-predictable and he will analyze power so exhaustively in its relation with knowledge using the method of genealogy that talking about power in any other way shows immediately how very dated your thinking is. How much you are still in the classical Dialectical Discourse. So if you want to converse with me you are goiing to have to change your language as I am not gonna go back there in that old timey place.Nothing can be communicated in it that is worth anything.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Garbo was mostly a silent film star first. The studios controlled their stars on and off the set and in their lives. She was European and not American. And it was a different time. If you could think genealogically you wouldn't say stuff like this.You wouldn't even think it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just because you can't see the change doesn't mean it isn't there. What they have done is to make a CUT in the way emergencies are handled and the way they ought to be handled: with compassion; concern; helpfulness; and instantaneous response without the bureaucratic delay for whatever reason, be they rational or whatever.
Occupy has CUT into the Discourse. What people can expect in the future if they themselves are in emergency need. As Zizek says, "you are the red ink!"
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Abbey,
Please know that I am not in any way conversing with you, ever. I'm not talking to you. Ever. If I respond to something you type, it is certainly not directed at you, personally. Ever!
Raylene
"marry him unless he converted. So he began instruction and fought it at every step of the way before he accepted it. He said later that you cannot question one brick of this instruction to deny it, without the whole edifice crumbling down. This is the kind of thing Foucault is saying here."
God- that gets said about all philosophy of things that resemble it. spare me. they said it about ayn rand. for god's sake. foucalt is dead. you know foucalt is dead- 1984. some things are timeless anyway- that is the idea behind great literature. anyone who feels they've unearthed teh Great lie by exposing santa claus is not real needs serious help. there is truth and it can be beautiful truth in these 'lies>' . I'm sorry if you had a lousy childhood or something, no ppoint in wrecking it for everyone else.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's not what Foucault is saying. He is saying there is an abrupt CUT in the child's ability to learn. Raylene you have an enormous resistance to learning, absolutely enormous. All you want to do is agrue, to dominate the Discourse and that is why it is called the Dominating Discourse because once you are in it, you are in it to win it. To prove yourself right and the other wrong.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The oft repeated lie that OWS was college kids, on break no less, has been refuted. But you will repeat it because that is what you want to believe. Identity trumps actions. I wasn't attempting a grand defense of OWS as much as just a correction to an oft repeated meme about the ground level participants. Which speaks to the bigger issue about actions over beliefs in general.
Were you apart of any of the movements you mentioned? If so, then at least you speak from experience. If not, you should pass over in silence.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's been a number of years since I read this and I had forgotten about what Foucault said about children and The Lie and Truth as a lie. This took place in 1971 one year after his first published work The Order of Things. Early on you see Foucault honing in on the CUT, that moment when things change abruptly, when there is clearly a before and an after that are discontinuous. What will later be called the Event, that will do away with progressive history and development, the illusion strangling our lives, the Big Lie.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just as the Event of 9-11 was the 24/7 media surrounding it, the act was turned into A Debordian SPECTACLE which covers the event and determines how it will be perceived and discussed in the Dominating Discourse. The SPECTACLE obscures the truth, the reality inherent in the act or event and hides it, keeping it secret. When you don't know this then you have become duped as people here are duped. They believe it was what the media said it was. since you were there, you know this is not true. But no matter how often and how much you say it wasn't like that, they may grant you your facts as true, BUT THEY WILL NOT BELIEVE THEM! They believe the SPECTACLE, the illusion veiling it. (Baudrillard; Debord; et al)
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That is right Abbey, because I wish you would shut the fuck up. You're such a flipping girl! No wonder you like Ayn Rand. I'm so sure. "We must expose the terrible LIE that is Santa Claus!" "Floating statement dresses, so superior, to say, the stifling dominating Dior New Look, don't you think!" You're single handedly setting women back thousands of years because YOU ARE SO STUPID. I wish you would get your discourse out of the public discourse and minimize your own harm to everyone else. You need to lie down and screw, get pregnant, get barefoot, get down to Earth, have feelings, and become a real person. that's what I think.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A real person with the likes of someone like you who writes something like your comment. I don't want to get to know you, to be vulnerable with you, to share ideas because you don't have any.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 27, 2013 10:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Forgive me I was just using examples that I thought maybe - just maybe - you could relate to. Obviously I was wrong. Then you bring in what you surmise as my awful childhood. What does that have to do with the price of butter, whether I did or didn't. You are projecting your disturbance on me.
And don't bring Ayn Rand into this unless you know a great deal about Rand. On this topic you should fear to tread. She is far more radical than she ever thought she was. Go read my blog posts on her and argue over there about her. The software is much better. http://aynrand2.blogspot.com
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 3:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am rereading it tonight and as always with Foucault you can read him backwards and forwards in a never ending mobius strip I think.Elders is very confused and so his questions are confusing. Chomsky is just in a dying discourse and Foucault is moving into the post modern one. I was wrong about the dates. It says 1971 but then it mentions Madness and Civilization and his appointment at the college de France so this interview is not very early Foucault at all.
("This critique and this fight seem essential to me for different reasons: firstly, because political power goes much deeper than one suspects; there are centres and invisible, little-known points of support; its true resistance, its true solidity is perhaps where one doesn't expect it. Probably it's insufficient to say that behind the governments, behind the apparatus of the State, there is the dominant class; one must locate the point of activity, the places and forms in which its domination is exercised. And because this domination is not simply the expression in political terms of economic exploitation, it is its instrument and, to a large extent, the condition which makes it possible; the suppression of the one is achieved through the exhaustive discernment of the other. Well, if one fails to recognise these points of support of class power, one risks allowing them to continue to exist; and to see this class power reconstitute itself even after an apparent revolutionary process.")
And so much of the above goes on here on this thread. My impatience is not with the people but their Discourse. I found Chomsky lovely but so dated.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 3:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Fooucault on being asked to give a label for the disease afflicting modern society: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
(" The definition of disease and of the insane, and the classification of the insane has been made in such a way as to exclude from our society a certain number of people. If our society characterised itself as insane, it would exclude itself. It pretends to do so for reasons of internal reform. Nobody is more conservative than those people who tell you that the modern world is afflicted by nervous anxiety or schizophrenia. It is in fact a cunning way of excluding certain people or certain patterns of behaviour.
So I don't think that one can, except as a metaphor or a game, validly say that our society is schizophrenic or paranoid, unless one gives these words a non-psychiatric meaning. But if you were to push me to an extreme, I would say that our society has been afflicted by a disease, a very curious, a very paradoxical disease, for which we haven't yet found a name; and this mental disease has a very curious symptom, which is that the symptom itself brought the mental disease into being. There you have it.")
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 3:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
or maybe people are throwing their power away so that the dominant class, representing things they were once powerless over, such as their parents, can continue to be seen as tyranical so that the child can continue to not grow up.
perhaps to cling to outdated ideas of who they were then, confusing those ideas about who they were then with who they are now.
or perhaps they just are waiting for a better opportunity to present itself so they can heal.
people have a way of holding onto things so that they can be resolved at a later date, which is partly inevitable, but sometimes can wreck lives.
but as long as this continues, they will not heal, because they will need the situation to stay the same. so they can stay the same. they will fight ineffectively. like the occupy movement does and did.
if they were to at least work out the issues with another person, in relationship to another person, the odds of them achieving some growth would improve.
perhaps a starting point would be for them to get the idea out of their heads that politics, which is work, should be confused with pursuits of pleasure, such as personal growth and spirit issues.
anyway- as usual I am here not talking to Abbey. I wanted to say to Jonny, what you said about the truth. I have always thought, on varying levels in varying ways, that my family really never loved me. If there were lies, they were merely confusing, such as things like "s/he is an alcoholic, s/he doesn't know how to show feelings, s/he does not know how to raise children." I'm not bitter about it. I'm not even bitter they didn't love me, although it would have saved a lot of time and energy on my behalf, being confused about that, trying harder than perhaps i might have otherwise, continuing to be (let myself be) dependent. It still leaves me with the pesky problem of still loving *them* however. I thought it might be relevant to your post.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 3:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
God. the French will believe anything. Unbelievable. I kind of liked Pascal. I don't know if I've liked anything they had to say since then. I was pleased they kept the Taliban from invading someplace in Africa. If they even did that.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 4:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Chicken joke: Foucault
1
Michel Foucault (1926-1984) was a French philosopher and all-around intellectual whose work has perhaps been more often cited than understood.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Michel Foucault: The discursive practices of the farm, which led to the development of chicken wire, the fenced barnyard, and the institution of the chicken coop, also constructed the authority which both invented the idea of the chicken and exerted power upon that chicken to compel it to cross the road.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
maybe the fact that all those people were there, people like naomi wolf, ... I can't imagine what those people had to say at an event such as Occupy. I can imagine that people would want to hear them, sure, everyone but me seems to be interested in Naomi wolf. But what i mean is, the fact these people were willing to speak there, I would not be surprised if it was viewed as an opportunity for them to be there, not necessarily teh same attitude as Vietnam or the civil rights movement, where I would imagine the causes were key. So Abbey has actually reversed things- the posing and teh posturing were probably more Occupy. I'm sure teh Vietnam protesters were probably a lot more sincere. War does that, and also the disconcerting sense of waking up when one has lived a certain safe way in America and they begin to think it was an illusion and a harmful one at that. (There are psych studies that back up how Vietnam changed Americans and therefore america in profound ways as far as destroying trust in governemnt and in education, because of what had been previously taught in the schools, an idealized version of America). I also suspect the nature of youth and protest were different then. Of course lots of old people protested too, I'm not meaning to say they did not.
We are at the point where celebrities, media celebrities and celebrity intellectuals know there are events to be seen at and to speak at and the cause might not be key. Also I think another problem with Occupy may have been, it was about money. Americans do not see money as a real thing. Trust me on this. It's not because they are deep and have meaningful reflections about how it is just a piece of paper or whatever. It's many other things- living on credit cards, dealing a lot with virtual money, always being told budgets are going to get cut and crisis will ensue every year and nothing too terrible usually happens, it's even living so often without money for a lot of people that their standard of living is so compromised it barely depends what they do spend it on because it will never nearly be adequate. and so I think protesting for the sole purpose of getting money, while totally valid, is going to necessarily lack some kind of urgency and conviction. I believe it was Dovahkiin who pointed that out, and I want to say thanks, it made me re-think. I just had to read it a few times though.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 9:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think I know what you did. You better watch it Mister, I am onto you. Two things. One concerning reading I think a certain thing by a certain somebody about a certain famous author and doing something highly creative with it. (Flips on super bright light, shines it in his eyes). Another thing. A certain comment by a certain somebody concerning a certain something somebody wrote. Wait- is that what I just said? (reads) No. This is different. You know why and I know why. So there.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 11:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, it used to be that the comment sections was almost just as valuable for useful insights as this blog. Now it's just like the rest of the internet.
I know, I should contribute something instead of complaining, but as the man says: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.....so I'll just keep my mouth shut from here on out.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 11:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I glanced at this article, what an ambivalent article. ...then the blogger hastens to add that kristin Stewart actually does smile, is sweet, as if to say: and besides! You guys, she's not all that different! this sounds quintessentially female to me, ambivalent, taking all sides, any sides, all over the place.
Raylene, in this instance you're making a substantial error of perception. The article is actually exceptional because the degree to which Society is obsessed with gender reinforcement is so terrifying I simply don't have the vocabulary to adequately describe the horror. Pink for girls, blue for boys. Breast-feeding & accessorising dolls for girls; soldier and fighting and violent dolls for boys. Household and kitchen toys for girls, guns and shovels and spades for boys. Non-violent sports for girls, psychotically-violent contact sports for boys (in Australia, in junior soccer alone, there's 50,000 ACL reconstructions per annum - we only have a 25 million population!) For those unaware, an ACL reconstruction is vastly more debilitating than a broken tibia or fibula - I got one from rugby union and after a year of intensive physio I was lucky with 80% recovery [about the best you can hope for]. I can never kneel on that knee again.
Boys to build pyramids and fight slave wars.
Girls to breed the next generation of boys to build pyramids and fight slave wars.
Where's the media coverage of horror like this? I'll tell you why there isn't any. It's for the same reason Kirsten Stewart is smeared in the entertainment media. All the blogger was saying was that she's being unfairly smeared. She's not "emo" or depressed just because she doesn't fake smile 100% of the time; she's not a "troubled young adult" just because she refuses to play by their rules; with the exception of Jennifer Lawrence (who is a little bit too self-deprecating not to be playing a very shrewd game), Kirsten Stewart is a VERY important person because she's alone in a sea of filthy sleaze and lies that are so damaging for girls, you can see it for yourself.
Watch a Dakota Fanning interview from when she's a prodigious child; take note of the awe-inspiring brilliance of her mind when she didn't care about what the industry thought of her. Then watch any interview she does post-Twilight. She's a babbling imbecilic ditz (faked of course; rather poorly but you'd be lying if you feigned ignorance regarding her motive/s).
Girls shouldn't have to do that. Nearly as importantly, guys shouldn't have to do that either. I did what Dakota is doing or I'd never of spoken to a girl longer than it would take me to say a deal-breaker word like esoteric. I had to eliminate 3/4ths of my vocabulary or no girl would give me the time of day. We're drilling ourselves down to the lowest common denominator and we hit the first one of those 5000 years ago.
also what is funny is how she as a feminist is trashing on so many other women in Hollywood implicitly by trying to make kristin feel included by praising her intelligence, thereby implying actresses are shallow and stupid.
No you missed her point. There are likely no shallow and stupid actresses in Hollywood (well not in the premier tier). But aside from Kristen Stewart, they are - you know - acting as if they are. What is not important is that they are doing this; what is fundamentally important to Humanity is why.
Happy happy happy. Because we're the creepiest race of sociopaths imaginable and if you're a victim SMILE or you will regret creating a scene. And you'll be ostracised because in this world it's the victim who is to blame; whether you're a victim or not, they'll make you one. I know a little about this subject matter.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 12:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Goodbye Alone, and thank you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 12:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well, it's always nice to hear from you. I'm not a big fan of huge displays of how it's okay for a girl to do whatever she wants. I'm cool with just having her be that way though. I have a daughter. she was raised in blue jeans. i'd do it the same if I had it to do over- it saves their knees from getting all scabbed up. And of course she doesn't have to smile. And if i had a boy he could be gay if he wanted or feminine or flamboyant, and he doesn't have to smile either. I rarely ever--- Alone is great, I like Alone, but I tend to not kill myself to agree with him about anything. Old habits I guess. But I think not praising children excessively for them just basically doing the right thing, behaving the right way, might apply here. I think all that attention: "Good girl! Girls can be powerful!" sort of can be so excessive and fawning it actually implies the opposite,that she's done some great thing by not being an idiot. I also think all this--- well, a lot of the feminist stuff is vehemently anti-traditional female values, may even be a weird kind of--- what's that defense mechanism? where you do what the socially acceptable thing--- no wait, when you say the socially acceptable thing. Reaction formation. I think some of it is reaction formation, which gets girls in the habit of lying without even knowing they are doing so, to be cool and liked and whatever. Also i come from a family where the women have basically always done what they damn well pleased, for generations, pretty much. So whining about oppression..... I'd rather put the focus on individuality than on anything about gender. I don't think girls need us to give them complications with gender when frankly girls can pretty much do what they want and have been able to for a long time so I don't see why we have to reward or denigrate that even with just praise or criticism. I will say i think little boys look so cute when they dress like bad asses however- camouflage cargo pants, bright orange construction color sweatshirts. Boots. So cute. Dakota Fanning may legitimately be going through a stage where she is kinda a ditz. It happens. You try it on as a stage, like clothing you put on, to see how it works for you. It can be fun to be a little ditzy. Like everything else, if you don't fuck with it by rewarding or punishing, it might pass or become less pronounced.
i also think Americans might want to get it through their heads, now that I think about it, that if a girl does not value herself and behave accordingly in her teenage years.... they've made bigger mistakes than anything about gender. starting to preach to her about gender at that point is like a band-aid on something that is bleeding like a lot. If you haven't screwed your kids all up by teenage years ... I think you might be able to let go and breathe a little. Should be able to. At least that is what the experts keep telling me.
starting to talk to a teenage girl who is fucked up about mere gender obfuscates teh real issues, i bet.
and finally, I have to say that ... if you brainwash your kid with a bunch of gender nonsense, they may actually wind up accepting less than what is their due in life. By continuing to cater to, accept jobs in, volunteer in a bunch of gender nonsense. which may--- I don't have great interpretations of anything Alone says, I always see 500 things in it nobody else does, it's kind of surreal--- but ... that may be his point. Women politicians accepting jobs because they've been brainwashed to think they are doing such a great thing by accepting these jobs, when in reality the jobs are so crappy that the men have left by then. but it's OK, the women get paid in feminism! in "doing the right thing for society" (a traditional female value, btw, ironically enough).
this may be the first time i actually 'got' one of his posts. i think. the way it was intended, perhaps.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 12:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
that was supposed to be humorous. it sounds a little psycho, sorry. there is another post. the nice, kind of poetic one. I just got it. Thank you. thank you so much.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 12:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
nb. Sorry I don't do self-censorship. I have no need to cater to the needy who need to learn how to speed read; but when they're too lazy, they reveal their entitled insanity by imagining I'm communicating with the illiterate. I assure you that I am not.
i wish you would be clear on what lies specifically children are being told and what this one isolated truth is they, or you, are being told or have been told. Please. It might be a sad thing but I have a feeling it is good stuff, valuable stuff to know.
Everything. Click on this link. It's a single paragraph from Lies! Lies! Lies! The Psychology of Deceit, written by an academic who is a world authority on lying (and it's not like he's dull or anything). He's merely insane. I could show you dozens of examples where he doesn't even know what distinguishes truth (realities, tangibles) from lies (non-truths, fantasies, ethereal tripe) any more.
Children are lied to about everything. Your first reaction will be dismissive or blanket disbelief but it's true. Children are lied to about everything from the moment they learn about Santa. Their entire world is constructed lies (mostly emotional and mostly conducted by mothers who are under the control of Society's creeps).
"Put some clothes on that kid" > Is the nakedness of a toddler triggering an emotional reaction in you, buddy? Please come this way to RIP.
"Say please!" > For the love of Odin, why? It's batshit insane. Are mothers doing their children a favour by feeding them? They want to feel appreciated after hijacking a child hostage out of the ether, so the child feels indebted and motivated to please them? Ladies, come over here to RIP.
"What, no thank you?" > Why would you teach your child to trade in the worthless emotional currency of religion? Does gratitude feed the hungry?** Does pity provide shelter from the elements? Does "feeling bad" about the 30,000 children under the age of 5 the West's corporations murder every day improve their fate?
"What you did was wrong. You must be punished." > Why would you reinforce the deluded idea in the child's head that what they did was in their own best interest, by punishing them? The entire Crime & Punishment insanity is so retarded, I don't have the words. Every magistrate, judge, jurist, prosecuting attorney - the entire Justice system needs to RIP. You don't teach humans how to act in their own Selfish best interests by telling them what they did was naughty but sane and that getting caught was their mistake.
"Because I said so." > Whoa. If you can't explain your motive or reasoning or logic to a child, you are so batshit insane I could kill you myself. I couldn't really, but only because I'm a damaged human animal. A healthy human animal would protect the young with a Selfish, humane ferocity. Because what are you really saying aside from "I'm psychotically violent and bigger than you, so do as I say or else."
"Now say sorry." > Why are you teaching your child to be a sociopath who manipulates with remorse, contrite, apologetic, regretful, devastated and a thousand other religious emotions which cannot be faked because they're counterfeit in the first place.
"Respect your elders." > Brilliant. Teach your child how to manipulate the emotionally insane who are so needy, they need children to defer to their capacity to fail to generate a reason to be respected, for longer. It's about violence again. But the needy sociopaths just want the song and dance to feel important or superior. Don't look now, but you've just trained a child how to use faux emotion to manipulate to their 'advantage'.
That's literally what sociopaths do. Do they do anything else?
Anyone trading in emotional currency should be RIP STAT.
________________
**nb. Why would anyone feed the hungry? Jesus was a filthy trader in dependence. The hungry should be fed if they have potential to contribute and then they must be rapidly taught Self-reliance. If you cannot feed yourself in this world, or make a convincing case that to feed you would be an investment (i.e. charity does not exist), then you should be humanely rested in peace. You can disagree but I am right. Only sociopaths want the cycle of needy to roll on. It's why religion makes death terrifying for children. Keep all that suffering and misery here please, what possible role or function could religion play without the suffering of Humanity? From whence would they derive their power if you don't suffer? How do you solve a problem like Maria?
Humanely.
RIP.
Oh, you're offended you say? Awwh. Come over here and Rest In Peace.
Oh, you have a problem with Truth? Well we can't have that. Kindly RIP.
Oh, you'd prefer not to answer that question? It's private, is it? Personal? Classified? Secret? RIP.
The emotional lies children are conditioned to believe are normal or natural (jealousy, envy, malice, coveting, advantage over Humanity, hatred, benevolence, charity, bravery, loyalty, trust, knowing one's place, obedience, deference, entitlement, superiority, inferiority, generosity, nationalism, racism, patriotism [all treasonous to the human race], rage, hatred, revenge, justice [eye + eye + tooth + tooth = four injuries more likely to create vendetta than deter a damn thing], birth rights, property rights, respect for anything not-merit related, heroism, self-sacrifice, duty, honour, elitism, favours, shame, religious disparities of size, strength, mental capacity - it's all corruption designed to get humans to fight with humans)...it's all religious lies conditioned into children to make them exploitable and disposable. And don't take my word for it; use your mind. You know this is true, never mind the fact that they've printed 8 billion copies of the most filthy emotionally corrupted propaganda in history? (which kind of gives their game away)
Not one of those emotions will ever be in the child's (or a human's) best interests to feel. Happiness is not exclusion, it's inclusion.
_____________
But the worst of all the lies is the lie that is true but incorrectly framed. Exclusive, selective, special, needy LOVE.
You need love when you have no Self. Your Self dies when you are loved and made to be dependent on a mother that needed you more than 99.99% of people will ever be bright enough to appreciate (including the sociopath mothers who have been treated Right their entire life [talk about being a whore] and now need a new pretext to be treated Right [when no one wants to split their legs any more). Cue dependent, ruined children.
So many mothers should be humanely rested in peace. All the needy comes from those who invested in their body rather than their mind. The fact that Society then chose that exact type of worthless, imbecilic, moronic liability to mother all of Humanity is not by accident. It's religion's entire game.
A corruption of the natural order. Making girls feel ashamed of being girls.
Misogyny. It's all about creating needy > misery > pain. Religion and the State can control humans who are not in control of themselves.
"And so we beat on, boats against the current,
Borne back ceaselessly into a lie that we were led to believe was true because it was...the Needy, Evil, Untenable Truth."
We need to rid the world of imagined, emotional needy or it's all going up in mushroom clouds.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 1:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It still leaves me with the pesky problem of still loving *them* however. I thought it might be relevant to your post.
I don't have the answers to so many things, it's terrifying. One of the most terrifying is how I should feel about my baby siblings. They're kind of dead now, really; as in the light has gone out of their eyes and I can't bring them back to life because I lack the courage and the cavalier recklessness and the certainty that their lives would be better off in this world if they were given the cold, impossibly brutal (because of the filthy lies of mothers) Truth.
But when my baby sister was three or four, I was a commissioned officer in a military of a nation looking increasingly likely to be in the willing coalition that I was certain was the pretext for WWIII. I had men whose lives would be in my hands the entire time; one mistake, I could wipe out my unit. They'd have been safer in the care of my baby sister and I'm not even kidding. My three year old sister was my emotional superior in ways that weren't even funny or debatable (more sobering, awe-inspiring, fascinating).
I would default to over-protective and she'd never respond immediately but every time, I'd get taught a cute, gentle lesson where she'd emotionally manipulate / trick me and then smile in a way that said a great deal. Something like, "Hey, I just showed you that I can take care of myself. You take care of you and I'll watch out for me. I don't need you looking out for me. It's sweet but I don't like it. It's not necessary."
Her mind at three years old was...like a million or a billion three year olds? I have no idea as I've not met many but the ones I've known have been so bright. Razor sharp minds. Geniuses.
Then the lies start. The entertainment media's emotional conditioning. The Love. The Cut, if I understand Abbey's discussion of Foucault correctly. And that fierce light in their eyes, that life that burns so brilliantly; it just fades away into sullen emptiness and obsession with routine and behaviour and what to do and what not to do and who to consider and what to be concerned with. I watched my baby sister die over five years because I couldn't kill the predator who was killing her. How do you kill a sociopath so vile they make their victims love them in order to protect their own worthless leeching filthy hides?
I'm babbling a little but I'm emotional. I don't know how to answer questions about trade-offs on human life and value. When Mandy was alive at four, how many random four year olds would I kill to ensure her survival?
I know the correct answer is zero. Being related to me has neutral affect on human value. I know the real answer would have been terrifying. But it's all moot because I couldn't kill the whore who makes her children love her before sucking the life out of them and killing their will to live with her filthy, endless obsession with keeping up public appearances and deceit for the 'purpose' of momentarily impressing creeps who like well-behaved children. Religious creeps, of course (is there another kind?)
I think anyone who thinks children should behave should be RIP without further deliberation. I truly believe that anyone who sets rules without explaining why the child should want to act in their own best interests anyway (i.e. negating the need for rules - there is never any need for rules unless you're destroying your child with your insanity) should be humanely terminated without emotion.
Ah shucks. I had forgotten. Whatever would be done with all those children they've given birth to in a world that kills 30,000 children per day? All those children of Their Own whom they've Confidence tricked into loving them with lies and filthy corrupt mirrors the sane children cannot see coming because needy sociopaths are just too insane to see coming. What would be the impact on the children, who don't realise they're victims of those they trusted to be their mirrors of truth. All those children raised with love and lies.
How utterly vile and convenient.
nb. I have no idea if the above is coherent; let alone relevant to your post Raylene. I'm too emotional to know, presently. It's funny how that passion makes you crazy. I bet that's where crimes of passion come from. Throw the mothers in prison. Let the poor victims be rehabilitated with medicine and truth.
Good night.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 2:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I answered you but it is in moderation limbo. A hot link. Or 2 or 3 maybe.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 2:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Raylene it's easy to be cynical about why "celebrities" were at Occupy. Since Chomsky and Mailer witnessed at the Pentagone Protest for Vietnam they are a guarantee of better behavior from the SWAT teams. The protestors circling the Pentagon were mercilessly beaten bloody row after circling row. The only media describing this was Mailer. No matter how many women he raped up the butt in his novels, I will forever love him for witnessing what they did to those sitting peacefully in a circle, around the Pentagon. Many obviously brain damaged for life from the bloody head beatings. And no one ever since has said a word about that.
Zizek was not paid for sure. And he does not need the exposure. Not. At. All. He is the only public intellectual activist who relentlessly and tirelessly does this. This hot link which will go into moderation for maybe forever is large print, easy to read of his speech. If you prefer you can go to youtube to listen and watch. http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/2012/03/slavoj-zizek-speaks-at-occupy-wall.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 3:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Raylene you are going through the standard discourse of the neo-liberal on this. Stages to explain Dakota's ditziness. Understanding through psychological jargon. Having been in the profession most of my life I knows it when I sees it. It goes nowhere, but you have learned those ready-mades very very well. and you are following their advice with your daughter. Hooray. At the same Time Kristen Stewart, who has it all, has done none of those things and her mother did none of them to her from what I can extrapolate from quotes that she may or may not have said.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 3:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From Moby Dick:
All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practicably assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 4:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't see how you are engaging in any discourse other than to tell people that they are using the dominant discourse and then proceeding to link to or quote Faucault.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 4:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you were a shrink as you have now said twice, you must have been a piss poor one. what on Earth made you say schizophrenics rarely laugh? For starters. Are you licensed in the States? what is your degree in, from where? I'll make a point of avoiding other such shrinks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 4:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know. Marry me. Seriously. She enrages me so much I can't see straight to reduce it to such calm, factual terms. It's exactly like talking to my crazy mom.
Think about it. I'm kind of old, but I am a really good cook. ;-)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 4:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oooooooh, I see now. You must have driven your schizophrenic patients to catatonia.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 4:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If we get rid of all the emotionally needy that is everyone, dolt. Cretin. Doofus. God, I hope you use condoms every time. maybe next time, use 2 or 3 rolled right on top of each other.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 5:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I replied carefully to this post and it is evidently gone. some of my hot links go through and some go to moderation and I have no idea what rules the software is enforcing. BTW I HATE the software on this blog. Alone needs a good IT person desperately. Why wordpress and blogspot are better places for this. Hint hint. Move to wordpress. It doesn't support disqus and it so easily could then it could be moderated from disqus so efficiently. Hint hint.
What I said about your sister was from Baudrillard.
"Children are children but they don't believe they are children. So they play a double game." You describe the double game perfectly with your over protectiveness of your little sister.
In his book The Perfect Crime Baudrillard details how reality is stolen from you and everyone else in homeopathic doses. This is what every thread almost here is about. The Perfect Crime gives us no crime, no victim, no perpetrator, no body, no witnesses.
I know about these children what you know about them. In 1966-67 I taught at Miquon, a supposedly free school. What it did was cover up the manipulation that went on in smilingly getting them to do what you wanted them to do.
I was armed with Montessori tho. "You do not have the right to seduce the child into doing what you want them to do."
I believed all this but had never practiced it until that year. The reason they hired me was I had looked it over for my niece and talked a lot with the ex principal and my niece was enrolled there at the beginning of this year, repeating first grade. A child who read to me out of her books at 3 mind you, so already the public schools had had their say. That year the school had one of the original founders leave that class. The teacher everyone couldn't wait to have. They were enraged at this deception. By the beginning of October they had driven 2 teachers out of the classroom.I had just returned from Arizona, woke up to a pleading phone call from the new principal in his desperation to find a teacher for this class. I thought of you he said. so I went. It was my perfect chance to do this. Boy I couldn't have been more wrong. I died every day. Here I was with 2 MS degrees, one in ed and one in exp psych and they were destroying everything I thought. They refused to do anything and my idea of what a free educational classroom was, was challenged more than I could ever have envisioned. the only thing I had to hang on to was A. S. Neil who said, "Their rage will be equal to the amount of repression they have undergone." It was Lord of the Flies and I had decided if after Xmas vacation it hadn't gotten any better I was leaving.
But returning after Xmas, all was different. What had being home done to them. I will never know. I was blessed by a few children whose parents were not authoritarian. A father who was a mathematician at The Princeton Center where Einstein had been. He told me much later that "he sent his children to Miquon not because of what it did but because of what it didn't do." (Anatole Holt)
So these few children in the class were my allies. they knew what they wanted to do every day they were there. It was a wild ride, but I have never learned so much in one year in my life. They taught me everything I wanted and needed to know.
Imagine this:
They refused to go to math class and I respected that. The math teacher came to me to tell me and ask why. I said I didn't know. she had one genius in my class that she was putting in high level materials and she wanted this success.She asked me what R was doing. I said, well, I didn't really know, but he spent a lot of time with the Marchant calculater. I told her you know R he won't do anything for more than 3 seconds that bores him. I said I would bring them to her the next day to see if I could see why.
That same day R was grinding away on the claculater and I asked him what he was doing on it. ( I have a math stat background and that's the end of it.)He looked at me, then back at the keys, then at me again, fidgeted, tried to avoid my eyes and finally said, "Oh fuck it Janet, you wouldn't understand!" For years I asked friends what he was doing. After almost 10 years an engineer told me, "Oh he was probably playing around with prime numbers."
The next day we went to math class and she handed their workbooks to them and they began to do the page like good little boys and girls. Except one. T just sat there. He was very bright but different. She came over and asked him what page he was supposed to be on. He told her. she said open to it the page. He did and sat there. She said read the instructions. He did. Then she said read the first problem. He did. then she said are you supposed to add, subtract, multiply or divide. He told her. Then she said what is the answer. He told her. she smiled and went off to supervise someone else. T sat there and sat there and sat there. I finally said, "Why didn't you write the answer down." He said, "She didn't tell me to pick up my pencil and write it down."
Then I got it. I had been reading Games People Play by Eric Berne. (One can go very far with that book and I was desperate.)So the insight I got was that if you tell anybody what to do, then you are going to have to tell them exactly how you want them to do it. this is the complicity of the slave.
You want a drink? What kind of drink? What glass do you want it in? How far should I fill it" Etc.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 5:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is what happens when your habitual Discourse is not honored. This is why Kristen Stewart encounters so much rage from the media. You want me to be compassionate, therapeutic, and chit chat with you about feminism in your language template. Sorry. That's not going to happen. My favorite person in the world now is Ai WeiWei, the Chinese conceptual artist who holds off the totalitarian Chinese government with twitter. The put him under surveillance with many many cameras. Ai WeiWei put his own camera in his bedroom as they had "forgotten" to put one there. They ended up begging him to take it down. This is Zen. It is Judo, It is using the enemy against itself. Since you and I started to have it out, have you noticed how much more coherent your posts have become. And funny too. If you are really a good cook I just might marry you. Tell me your favorite recipes so I can judge your cooking expertise. Then I will decide if I want to make a formal proposal with ring and all.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 5:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OK I'll think about it. Do you wear a lot of makeup?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 5:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is funny!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 5:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Better them than me. Actually the last one was a woman who left me after being accepted by Barnard and Oxford for her junior year. The first ever Barnard student to get both acceptances at once. Never mind what she was like before.
Ha ha. I was left catatonic as I could never have achieved that. I also taught a 13 year old in Singapore to swim and in 4 weeks she was on her swim team at school. All I did was notice that her swimming instructor was teaching them all to breathe under their non-dominant arm and since everyone is right handed it usually works. But E was left handed. (I had suffered the same way in learning and until I swam high I never got it.) I could never ever at any time in my life have made the swim team. This is the story of my life. My students and patients have accomplished things I could only dream about. How's that for an envy counter-transference.
By laugh I mean hysterical belly laugh. a laugh that you can't stop. a laugh most adults have forgotten about. That kind of laugh.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 5:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I have said this stuff so many times:
Here's about smiling and lies:
http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2011/04/in-defense-of-kristen-stewart-on-not.html
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 5:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's about fugging over children:
http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2013/02/saving-mackenzie-foy-from-lolita-land.html
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 5:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Let out rage is doing wonders for you raylene. and your ever , ever, ever comment. Well, I am reading that one through Lacan.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 6:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jenni Maier at crushable on Jennifer Lawrence:
She needs to know right now that for the rest of her life, we all expect her to look red carpet ready at all times. Sleeping and showering and exercising is no excuse not to look like you just left a salon. And frankly it’s a little disturbing that she doesn’t understand that. I’m not saying we should take away her Oscar, but I’m also not saying that we should let her keep it.
Read more: http://www.crushable.com/2013/02/28/entertainment/jennifer-lawrence-smoking/#ixzz2MEob7fp5
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 6:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So it's credentials you want. So very proper you are eh. I bet that piece of paper on the wall tells you how good the therapist is. Yes? No?
How would it help you to know the answer to your question?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 6:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have posted a lot of good blog posts for you from other people. Today I posted my own. Have you read them? They will answer your question as to what I do besides disrupt people's comments that are in an old fashioned same old same old Discourse.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 6:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why would silence help things here? I'm only talking about what I see here. What I see is a movement of young middle class white people protesting the places that their parents work or places that they will work. And it's a movement with no demands, no leaders, and very little momentum at all. That's what it is. And no, I'm not in the movement, though I would be into that movement if I thought it was going anywhere. That's my observation of the movement -- unlike most other movements, nothing much is happening.
The Tea Party is structured much the same, except for two things. One is a need. For whatever reason these guys feel the need to reduce government. And they've made actual measurable progress. The sequester business (for better or worse) is because of the Tea Party, as is the Republican refusal to even consider raising taxes -- these are results of an actual movement that did something about their felt needs. They won't take no for an answer. If a politician goes against them, they can expect a strong challenge.
That's my criticism of so many of these psuedo-movements. They aren't focused first and foremost about making a change, but about the experience of protesting. It's about standing around with a sign, not changing things. Which I think does go to the main thrust of what TLP is saying about Women in this post. The point of a protest is change, the point of a rights movement is to gain power to make changes. Yet, a lot of these movements are more about showing off how much you are on the "right side" of history. Which is why so many of them are never going to do anything beyond make a bit of noise.
If OWS was about actual change, than why is it that they aren't doing what housewives are doing? Why is it that a bunch of Teabaggers can figure out that they need to hold their people's feet to the fire for not listening, and the OWS protesters cannot? Why is it that a Republican who votes against the Tea Party will lose in the primary, while a Democrat who votes against the OWS crowd isn't challenged? I think such wide differences deserve more than a dismissal and a pat on the head. Especially considering that the movements were started within a year.
My frustration is that in some very important ways the OWS crowd are right, but they unfortunately are more of a show-protest than a movement.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 7:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You cannot change things from the inside. And as Simulated Reality becomes more and more inclusive there is little outside to come from for change. Do you remember those old school textbooks that had all those small, loud, quickly defunct parties making demands. That model won't work. Yes the Tea Party gets some things and the neo liberals just tell them to take even more. The 2 party system and the loyal opposition does not exist. they are both playing the same game and as usual we are all fooled by their play opposition.Congress is a simulacrum now. It means nothing. The presidency means nothing. We are living in a dictatorship with a still relatively benign face.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 7:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the Occupy people aren't consciously about being on the right side- i don't think they'd say it that way. I think they're ambivalent. But it's a guess based on having spent some time around progressives. It's an intuition. I do know progressives try to play the political game. It's not all "let's be virtuous and have a happening together"- they do try to do what they think will apply pressure the right way and effect change. they seem, based on what I know of them, to be fairly satisfied with the results they get.
Republicans are mercenary as far as I can tell. Massive self interest. I think when they go to work, they go to work. I'm thinking progressives are not that way at all. this bothers me, but that's the best i can articulate it. I will say I would guess Republicans are more cohesive as a group than Democrats. Democrats as far as i can tell like to splinter off into little specialized groups- Green party, Libertarians, various progressive things, liberals. they can't seem to accept that if you throw all your votes toward one candidate it makes more sense; they get moralistic: what would happen if i voted my conscience? I'll tell you, jackass. Your side will lose. this isn't fairy land. Sorry.
But I have heavy bias here, my family is liberal Democrat going back to prior to the Revolution. I don't know what the party called itself then. i just know this is true, so I was brought up a certain way.
maybe if someone tried to apply business principles to politics- i mean, I'm sure it is being done, but still. I do know a lot of Republicans businesses tend to market to all parties or even to Democrats; Democrat businesses, liberal, progressive et al have a tendency of being exclusively left, which is not what you want, because you want the other side's money.
I have never heard of this happening, but Obama solicited me to work the phones. I mean, that has happened before, actually, but in this case it was when I has my time, no scheduled time, and from home. while this could be problematic, I liked it, liked how available it was, convenient, it seemed like a good plan. they provided a computer set up that teaches us how to talk to the people on the phones.
Funny true story- at one time i supported the war in iraq. I think it was a hard call for everybody. But I did and i was solicited by Republicans to do some work for them, since i was registered Republican, not because i like it but because they are weirdly more entertaining to me than Democrats. they drink, they laugh, they have money, they have a good time, and i thought- i don't know. Something I thought about voting in teh primaries. About if i did, i'd find Republicans much more bearable and a good time than Democrats. Sorry-truth. Don't hate me. So anyway- i sent them a letter telling them thank you but that as a single mother they were not getting money or time from me, and that i supported teh war. And they went NUTS. i got solicited like crazy after that. they literally offered to put my name on a building. It has to do with maybe some suspicious activity i reported prior to 9/11- i had information. i swear this is true. But I thought, my God, they must want at least one single mother to vote conservative. I got a shocking amount of mail. You would not believe. sorry such a long blathering post. did anyone else get an autographed picture of the president and First Lady that was personally autographed? I did. No kidding. My dad gives them money and he said he didn't get that. it was crazy. Now i'm registered Democrat. i still think they are more boring and they don't go crazy and buy you drinks. God- i must sound horrible. Sorry.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 7:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think Republicans are kinda like what they say about Satan. You know: he's devastating, he's charming, he's dashing, he'll get you drunk and hold your hand and pretty soon you're compromising yourself all over the place and saying things like "bigger than the both of us." It's like that Fleetwood Mac song Say You love me- you know, you're a vampire, you are so sweet, blah blah blah. i may be exaggerating a bit, but it's in that vein. Republicans tell good stories and read literature i'd rather hear about--- like, Kissinger versus Foucault? No contest. They also often have gone to really good schools which is fun to hear about- Thunderbird in AZ.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 7:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From Michel Houellebecq's The Map And The Territory (HB p. 105)
P. 105 HB
For two minutes he went through the owner's manual of the Samsung ZRT - AV2, nodding his head as if each of the lines confirmed his dark predictions. "Ah, yes," he finally said, handing it back. "It's a beautiful product, a modern product that you can love. But you must know that in a year, or two at most, it will be replaced by some new product with supposedly improved features.
"We too are products," he went on, "cultural products. We too will become obsolete. The functioning of the system is identical __with the difference that, in general, there is no obvious technical or functional improvement; all that remains is the demand for novelty in its pure state."
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 7:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's the whole "God I'm in so much trouble" thing. I know there is some dumb cliche that describes this but I can't remember it. "Can't help myself" blah blah.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 7:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Many of the Occupy people understand about cyber-capital. Globalization. Not all. But the movement gave them exposure to people who matter most about all this who came to them to talk with them and address them. Judith Butler was there. She is a major force on gender and bodies. BTW this blog post on make-up is just a tiny facet in her work.It is there, but just a speck of dust.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"By laugh I mean hysterical belly laugh. a laugh that you can't stop. a laugh most adults have forgotten about. That kind of laugh."
Well, maybe they don't laugh that way in a therapy session, I mean, hello. *My* new favorite thing is probably Lacan's whole idea of intersubjectivity and subjectivity. But... I mean, yeah. Getting intersubjectivity with a schizophrenic patient might take years and if you are listening for the kind of laughter that is shared, then yeah. therapists usually are not very funny people though. I've noticed they always let you take the lead; if you're funny, they lighten up a bit. This may be ass backwards. But the kind of laughter that is inner, i've heard them really get into that, laughter at their inner world. Really significant too, the laughter. I can see why a therapist might not get to hear it. It might be a good trick to somehow just get them to talk as if they were talking to themselves, conscious of talking to themselves. It might inspire better language. better subjectivity. Deciding your shrink is not an idiot for me takes about an entire year of treatment. the barrier between them and me and me explainig things so they can hear is substantial. If you could do away with them bothering to compromise for you that might not be so bad. You come to them. But, i don't really know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I never call anyone a narcissist, hardly ever. But I think that is probably what is behind that. This kind of I am better because I don't say anything if I don't have anything to say/anything logical to say. I don't think that is what that expression means though, i think it is a misinterpretation based on them using some internalized value system that they have that is basically wrong and based in some ways on being better than other people. so I think they're just being assholes. I thought earlier today it was odd, because saying I won't say anything as i have nothing to say is sort of like humility, but them pointing it out so conspicuously... and having experienced Alone's readers long enough...make me think it's narcissism, not humility. god- i must be tired i dont even know if I am making sense.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So you are immersed in Lacanian theory of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Better read Diane Rubenstein on him in This Is Not A President. Sumulated Reality, signs, floating signifiers, floating signifiers acting as masks to affirm, deny, dissemble,contradict and all his language readings. When you say Ever. Ever. Ever talk about you personally, then talk about my childhood. That's the same as Jodi Foster talking about privacy in a public speech at the Golden Globes Awards. Is she insane!Just read Ever as its opposite. You are always talking personally about me.You can do it if you want, I don't much care, as it's just transference to link me to your crazy mother. Don't you see any of this? I guess not or I don't think you would put it out there for the world to see.
Did you see how jenni maier at crushable turned this make up dress thing all around. I have spent about 6 months on her thinking. she is on her way now. She personally brought down the Kristen Stewart scandal. With a little help from her friends of course. And she never even knew she did it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know, Abbey, if one can understand about cyber-capital because i don't think the concept is a human, accessible concept. I think for anyone it may be hard to really understand; even if one understood, playing that game might necessitate understaning a little less. This is not my area. I'm just taking what little I know about goldmann sachs and that level of money, and about cyber stuff in general, .coms, all that. It's not real life. I think what i mean is just that it's like some kind of untenable thing. Normal people have enough problems with their freaking credit cards. and that is the same thing on a smaller scale, right? right? besides, LOL, we all know the best kind of money is, like, real money. Of course people even argue about what that is- gold, silver, cash, some people might say property, i don't know. I mean the kind you can readily chose to spend or save.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's just Double-speak from Orwell. Narcissist is simply a ready-made, a floating word meaning nothing. Narcissism usually refers to a clinical definition in psychoanalytic thinking and methodology. The ego is under constant attack by others and by the super ego. When the hallucinations and voices start then we are into a full blown psychosis. Schizophrenics used to be the hysterics Charcot wrote about and Freud. these boundaries are as imaginary as the boundaries of nations bordered by other states. Just drawn there for humans to be able to talk about them. I Never Promised You A Rose Garden, Hannah Greene's experience with psychosis is probably as good an account as any. Or Janet Frame's. The ego, the little self is smashed. In a functional narcissist they also are under attack constantly but have built the narcissistic defense against it, THE WALL. But as a label it doesn't mean too much unless you are treating patients with this disorder and with the breakdown of the Oedipal family of Father, Mother, child siblings almost all patients are narcissistic. They had to defend themselves early on.And even in the intact modern family you see it. People no longer sit down at the dinner table where you learn the stories of your parents's lives, their interests, their free associations. Families no longer eat together. You read Toynbee and when you come to the disintegration of empires you know that's where you are. And that's when post modern thinking holds out its hand and you grab it because there isn't any other hand around. Except art.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
no. what i said was, I am never talking to you personally. Which is essentially true. You couldn't possibly know whether I am or not, and so i suppose in that regard to you it may or may not seem as if i am. Anyway, i don't know why it matters. But your Jodie foster etc spiel is just you trying to evoke guilt. It's weird. That's what it looks like to me, and I've heard you do it before. Also, as far as me talking about my crazy mother, well, you also try to bring up shame on that. But i talk about things. That is who i am. You show a remarkable lack of even being able to talk about the subjective. That is your deficit. Saying i should be like that- uh uh. Can't happen, and also, no, I shouldn't. I think your ability to say what you mean about your discourse and what not would be enhanced if other areas of your life were explored. So in a roundabout way it would probably help you with your real interests about discourse and Foucault and what have you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
DeLillo's Cosmopolis fictionalized it. If you are interested in understanding it this is one post I wrote among 100 plus others on that book. I think I have become the foremost authority on it! LOL!
http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/2011/05/graph-of-yen-to-buy-1-us-dollar-money.html
You don't understand cyber-capital because it is not about money. It is just numbers circulating the globe "rising and setting with the sun" as Baudrillard says.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think teh boundaries that you speak of not existing are imaginary. Your problem is you never explain anything adequately, just refer back to foucalt. I hate your ayn Rand site, anyway. But- teh boundaries that are crossed in a psychotic break or a series of them matter. to say they are arbitrary is either an insult or an overly romantic view of madness and the flattering of yourself that you, too, understand and know what it is like. You don't. I assume you are looking at it as an extreme version of narcissism, then? Schizophrenics are narcissists to an extreme that goes beyong narcissism? That is you, inventing an arbitrary little thing. and inflicting it on your patients. that is disrespectful. it also belies common sense. anyone paying real attention to a psychotic patient with eyes to see will know there is something very different going on there, and the word for it s not 'arbitrary.'
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 8:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I spent almost 20 years in my on personal analysis. I spent the same amount of time in supervision with my patients. In analysis you are never out of it. Not to mention the untold thousands it cost me. Just so I wouldn't have to bore myself and other people with all that stuff that they wouldn't know what to do with anyway. I just told you today about my teaching experience in a "free" school. And when you suggest I had a horrible childhood that is a personal statement from you to me. If you think it isn't, then what part of that statement did I get wrong? and when you say you are not EVER talking about me personally and you say it 3 times in a row in one sentence, then I see that emphasis as its opposite. That's Lacan. When you tell someone else you feel as if you are talking with your crazy mother when you talk to me, just what does that mean to you? If you said it on the couch it would absolutely be a transference communication, and it would be an indication that you were in the negative narcissistic part of the transference. The therapist should actually feel delighted that they are now in this phase. The anger is being released and verbalized appropriately. The energy that was consumed holding this back and wanting to be friends time is over. Now we have entered a more truthful phase. But I am not your therapist. Nevertheless things are proceeding along those lines. It's OK.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 9:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am talking about clinical definitions as boundaries. Clinical terms defining madness. If you haven't read Foucault on abnormal (Lectures at the College de France 1974-75) or his Madness and Civilization then you won't be able to follow anything much that I am saying. and yet you are pushing me to say it very aggressively. It is very difficult to get away from the thinking of the man who changed the way we think; who has changed the Discourse of thinking in the human sciences.If you read the interview I posted on Foucault and Chomsky the difference is there even that early in Foucault's increasing prominence in all academic subjects in the human sciences. You are still stuck in "the psychological swamp" and you can't seem to get out. Sorry. I'm not there anymore. I don't want to be there. I can't communicate with you there. It's too yesterday for me.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 9:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I apologize in advance for the poor writing that is about to follow, english is not my first language. Except Alone's posts obviously, you are the second most intelligent person one can read in this blog. It is comforting to see what you say hit close to home, or however the saying goes. Anything I type from now on will probably be self-centered nonsense, so I guess what I am trying to say is, write more.Somewhere where I can preferably read it.
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 9:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree with you. If you like jonny's writing then you will probably like mine too. different style, same message. Here's my review of Killing Them Softly http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/?zx=11f315758cc02640 and from there you can get to any of my others and a wonderful collection of blog posts by many people all over the world. I content myself with the fact that altho I have problems with American readers, the Eastern Europeans and Russians, Asians and Indians seem to like me much more.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 9:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Regarding the "beauty is a curse" topic, the following might sound like first-world problems, fake lamenting of a positive situation, but you don't really know unless you experience it first hand. I understand the perks of being beautiful(according to what your society, in your era considers that to be), and I am fully aware of the advantages society often offers me generously over the less fortunate ones on the looks department.
But if you think ugly people, or obese people get constantly criticized for their looks, you should try being what your fellow humans wherever you live consider very attractive.
The first thing females do when they meet me, is try to find something that is wrong with me, so they can feel some sort of justice exists. I can actually see their thought process as they look up and down, and scrutinize my face, hair, body, clothes, trying to find something they can be superior to, and go "she's not all that"
I never ask for this examination, but I always get it. They are not even discreet with it, I have actually heard females say shit like "I don't even think an ass that big is attractive" or "it's not proportionate to her body", or "I've seen faces waaay prettier, "her nose is actually kinda ugly"...."she's a bitch, she's stupid, she's a slut...."...
Imagine saying that about someone who is average or unattractive, imagine the angry backlash i would received, if I looked at a fat woman and said openly "her belly is waaay too big to be attractive..." They would come to my house with pitchforks and torches. But why do they have the right to scrutinize every single part of me just so they can all decide "I've seen better", as if I asked for their fucking opinion.
Males are equally interesting. Their first response is some sleazy, fake and over polite attempt to please me. And I have to be polite back to the slimey pervert, whose mental images i can practically see about me, otherwise I am a bitch...slut...etc.
Where both sexes unanimously agree though, is their desire to watch you fall. They will watch you every step of the way, just patiently waiting for a vulnerable moment where you are broken, so they can point and laugh and feel so satisfied and validated, that my beauty was not a pass to my happiness. There is justice after all. Oh, and they all love to remind me that "looks fade"....as if i was planning some 30 year beauty dictatorship. 'Just so you know missy..enjoy it now, but before you know it you will belong with us miserable souls".
In the meanwhile, it was them who even gave me whatever sad "power" this is, them who treated me differently my whole life because "omg...she's so pretty", yet they will resent me so fucking much for the "perks" THEY are providing me with.
Which are not fucking perks at all. The only perk you have is a vast amount of people trying to fuck you by being very generous with their money.And another very vast amount hating/avoiding/disliking you based purely on your looks. But somehow, goodlooking women are the ones to be portrayed as shallow.
Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 9:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stendhal said, "Beauty is a promise of happiness."
This is what Rob Pattinson is going through now. Not fun.
The insight of what you are saying hit me when I was going through customs into India. My friend was a very beautiful blond who at the time looked like the young Sharon Stone.
She was held up for ages while he went through every piece of luggage she had. I couldn't understand it then I got it. He just wanted to keep her beautiful face in front of him as long as he could while he pawed through her underwear and personal things. What a moment of awakening that was for me.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 10:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How would you know I don't know what madness is like?
How can I explain what your personal education has left out. I can't give you what studying 24/7 would give you. If you haven't thought about boundaries, or interfaces, or inside/outside how can I explain what meditation would open to you? I can't. I can't make up for what you don't know and you don't want to know it anyway.
The clinical definitions are made up by physicians for the purpose of prescribing meds from Big Pharma. They have nothing to do with cure, treatment, etc. They are to keep people maintained, just mental straight jackets instead of the physical restraining ones that demand you keep people confined, feed them, house them, employ people to look after them, etc. It's much cheaper to send them home with a script for pills.That's what almost all psychiatrists do. Analysts do not. If they want to suicide they want to do it on your pills.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 11:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's a link those of you who are fed up with me and Foucault will like. Funny! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/arts/design/miroslaw-balka-the-order-of-things.html?smid=tw-nytimesarts&seid=auto&_r=0
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 28, 2013 11:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's another blog post on the derivatives that explains in detail: It's on the movie Margin Call. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2012/04/margin-call-seeing-it-through-post.html
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 2:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book. – Friedrich Nietzsche
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 3:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Trauma and plsticity for those who are interested: http://cengizerdem.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/trauma-and-the-immanence-of-eternity/#comment-2385
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 4:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If we get rid of all the emotionally needy that is everyone, dolt. Cretin. Doofus. God, I hope you use condoms every time. maybe next time, use 2 or 3 rolled right on top of each other.
I don't understand this comment. What does adults NOT being so insanely pathetically needy that they'd strike a child who didn't "respect one's elders"...have to do with condoms?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 4:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nothing. Raylene's comment indicates very loose associations. Part of her problem and the confusing and sometimes incomprehensible syntax of her comments. Lack of focus and memory which are ego strengths indicating a weak ego, a strong id and a strong super ego if we enter the psychological swamp of interpretation and psychologizing. Let's not go there.
Her rage cannot be contained and expressed coherently. Perhaps when she reads this she will edit her first drafts.She needs to learn to censor herself. Isn't that what she asked you to do? It seems I remember something like that. Do you remember? She has admitted in a comment to an anonymous that I make her so mad she can't see straight and write concisely. I guess I am not alone in having that effect on her.
I shouldn't be writing about her like this. But she angers me the way she wants to get into my head as if I were in need of her therapy. So I do it back to her. I mirror her. She doesn't like it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 5:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you know that wonderful book Lies My Teacher Told Me? Deconstructs all that trash they teach you and test you on in school.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 5:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Which part of my Ayn Rand site do you hate? I would be very interested to know? Or is it just Rand herself?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 7:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think Republicans are kinda like what they say about Satan. You know: he's devastating, he's charming, he's dashing, he'll get you drunk and hold your hand and pretty soon you're compromising yourself all over the place and saying things like "bigger than the both of us."
Are you stupidly normal or something? How do you figure Republicans to be noble Humanitarians with a penchant (nearing an obsession) for telling Truth and whistle-blowing on Power's crimes?
Don't tell me, you're another of the 100 billion insane imbeciles programmed by religion to associate "Satan / the Devil / Prince of Darkness" with the negative stimuli of "Evil / Wrong / Unethical". You fool. You stupid fool. You're - and this is the most offensive insult I can imagine letting fling at anyone - you're normal. You should be so ashamed you could just die.
How embarrassing for you!
Let me guess; in your Pavlovian mind (Pavlov had far superior minds to work with), the demonic sociopathic "God" is associated with "Good". Am I right? How stupid are you? In shame approaching screaming terror, if I woke up one day and I as normal, I'd kill myself. Nothing else would be humane.
I'm mostly being hyperbolic but they associated the guy that rapes and slaughters and murders everyone with "Power". And the good guy gets punished for being sane and revealing God's lies. He's got no power, the Devil; and you know why as well as anyone pretending to be stupid and primarily fooling themselves.
Power is insane. Only evil people ever want it. You see what a nifty trick that was though, by religion? All the little vermin came crawling out of their little crevasses. Decency was bred out of this species thousands of years ago.
I hear (from people the insane psychiatric industry would pronounce to be sane) filthy insanity like "God is good." "Praise the Lord." "God help us." "In God we Trust." I hear this moronic insane shit all the time.
Is God good, though? I mean, really?
Numbers 31:17-18(KJV)17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Good? Really? For a demented emotional Toddler Christian, perhaps it would appear to be good to get some when you can't get any; but this is not really good for Humanity, is it?
Hosea 13:16(KJV)16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Good? Hmm.
Exodus 20:5 (KJV)5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
I've told Christians we can agree to disagree but the law prevents my terminating their pain and misery. Every religious subscriber is a sociopath using religion for - primarily - the molestation of children.
You have the nerve to associate the Devil with the demonic GoP? They're the Religious Right. You'll all confused about what is right and wrong, up and down, sane and insane.
Tell me this, what does the Devil ever do that is bad? I'll show you what that scoundrel has been up to lately; the same old whistle-blowing tricks.
Foreign Policy | Vatican: Leaks are the work of the Devil
The Usual Suspect. That cursed Humanitarian. He's at it again, telling truth about God's lies. Oh to HELL WITH HIM.
nb. By "HIM", of course I mean you. And by "HELL", of course I mean this planet. Look at that, you don't even have to move your fat ass. You're home. It's about to get very hot soon. Like toasty. Shit the polar ice cap has melted. You imbeciles have no idea what you're in for. It's going to be bloody.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 9:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, I have two loose associations, they are named Abbey and Jonny. Also two lines of tengential thought.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 11:25 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Ah, Croatoan. Well then, good luck then Alone, on your new island home. It's not necessarily paradise, but whether you're there for a vacation, retirement or a final rest, I hear its supposed to be better than this crappy colony.
Here's hoping you pump out a few blue eyed children while you're there.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 2:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sort of funny. I see you are trying. Keep going and maybe you will get better. spinning the word "associations" just doesn't quite cut it.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 3:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Some corrections in your thinking:
Your use of the word "power". Since Foucault (can you hear the sighs? I can.)In his book Power/Knowledge Foucault begins to make crystal clear the nature of power. It is in a relation with knowledge. To speak of power, you MUST also speak at the same time of knowledge. The two cannot be separated. It is a very careful genealogy of both power and knowledge. Just as knowledge cannot be given, taken from you, neither can transactions of power be. You cannot have power, give power, trade power, assume power, etc. Power is always in an inseparable relation with knowledge. It does not flow from the top but rather in this relational grid of power/knowledge it seeps through the interstices from below.Those of you who want to argue with me about this, first read Foucault's Power/Knowledge and tell me which part you disagree with. Then that will force us back into the classical Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis- synthesis - thesis - antithesis etc. I won't go there of course, but I am not nearly so sophisticated in extricating myself from it as was Foucault. You see the beginnings of it in his "debate" with Chomsky early in his career, which, he thought, would have to continue without any significant academic appointment in which to give him time and leisure to continue delving into dusty archives, reading almost illegible yellowed documents, a tedious, difficult life's work.
His biographer tells of the story when Foucault was at one of those University things where a famous guest speaker gives a talk or lecture and then there's a social gathering afterwards. A young woman was introduced to him as having done her PhD dissertation on him. Of course she was thrilled to meet him. He said to her, "Why are you bothering about me? do genealogies." When he died there were boxes and boxes of thousands of unfinished genealogies that he had done and that were not included as yet in his writings. They now are in the famed Bibliotheque in Paris that caused him so many headaches and fury when he was working in the archives.
Foucault died of AIDS in 1984. When at Berkely he loved to visit the gay bath houses. He said, "We all knew why we were there." He often put on leathers, and rode his motorcycle to S/M clubs. All this was made much of when he died by the media but his funeral was attended by thousands who mourned the loss of his great mind and influence and tireless work for revolutionary movements against tyrannical dictators and for prisoners incarcerated in a disciplinary system that knows no bounds.
By all this I am saying that Foucault knew very well about being normal and not normal in Western culture. He well knew that if he had lived even 100 or so years earlier he would have been imprisoned, perhaps permanently. Further back in time a little more he would have been changed in a dungeon or asylum. Artaud was for 10 years, that other great mind and artist. Foucault worked tirelessly for prisoners, not as a do gooder, but to enable them to set their own agenda for reform without the interference of knowing better others. this is a quick study of his history, his personal history, especially for you Raylene. He was not an armchair philosopher, historian,structuralist, post-structuralist, whatever label you attach to him as he has no label."Do not expect me to stay the same." "One writes to become someone different."
As far as normality is concerned it lies in the grid of power/knowledge/normality where power seeps through the interstices forcing you to become "normal". He details it in Madness and Civilization, Discipline and Punish and also in his very accessible
Lectures on Abnormal course at the College de France 1975-74. A digression here on this institution. One is elected here by his/her peers. It is a lifetime election. It is the highest academic honor in France. The professor titles himself according to his sphere of inquiry and research. I seem to remember Foucault's was of Hisotry of Ideas or something like that as I forget. The professor was expected to teach one semester a year on their present field of research. The classes met once a week and lasted for 3 hours. Attendance was open and FREE. No grades were given. No academic credentials or letters were earned by the students. People came from all over the world, flying in for that one 3 hours a week. To his dismay the attendance was so large additional rooms had to be used with video and auditory systems to accommodate them all.
Now this is influence and some may say power. But how could Foucault ever have given that to anyone who wasn't willing to spend the time to understand his life's work. He did not heed Nietzsche concerning disciples and he has not been served well by his disciples.
Your other error jonny is confusing bad and evil. This understanding I owe to Jean Baudrillard. Evil lies in the Symbolic Order of seduction. Bad lies in the Order of Production. Example: A boy relaxing by the side of a trout stream fishing, feeling the air and smelling the smells around him, feeling the tug of the moving water in the stream, the nibbles of the fish, feeling the line respond, learning when exactly to sink the hook by exactly the right amount of yank on the line, all this lies in the Symbolic Order of Seduction. The fish farm with its confined barriers, its nets, its domestic feedings at regular intervals, the selling in the market place lies in the Order of Production. Your loved dog can have puppies, cuddled in the house by a warm heater in the winter and her puppies played with, OR you can have a bunch of kennels in the yard, breed the females, and sell the puppies to brokers. So that is an example of Baudrillard's examined different ORDERS. "An object does not exist until and unless it is observed." -William Burroughs. So now if I talk about Orders, I hope there will be no confusion.
Bad is a moralistic terms. Evil is an ancient object of knowledge whose existence is crucial. The Intelligence of Evil is a book by Baudrillard well worth reading. B follows Nietzsche who flows in his bloodstream and rarely mentioned. The same with Ayn Rand. The same with Bataille.
The two orders again. All this came out of fiction first by the way. A story: A man and a woman were very much in love. She asked him which part of her he fell in love with first. He replied, "your eyes, of course." A few days later he was opening his mail and he opened a box. Unwrapping the tissue he uncovered her excised eye. The major difference in the two orders, first observed and described by Baudrillard is: reversibility and irreversibility. Capitalism lies in the Order of Production and by definition it cannot be reversed. (Barter of course can unless it enters into the Order of Production.)Marx understood this in his early Grundrisse which he wrote before the great Das Capital, and there it is not so clear. maybe he wanted to forget he had said it, as he wanted capital to disappear in the Utopia of the Proletariat. ( I always wonder if Rand had ever read this.If so it was not in her 35th rate library.)
Baudrillard has stated then that capitalism cannot be fixed. "If capitalism is to be destroyed, capitalism itself must destroy itself."
At the certain risk of repeating myself, would you please read that rather short essay of Nietzsche on The Genealogy of Morals where all this started. This is the essay that exposed god and the sacred sacrifice of Jesus. To regard Jesus as supernatural is to do a great human revolutionary a disservice. I always liked that story by Updike of the Loaves and fishes and feeding the multitudes, as I had already thought of what he said. What if each one was hoarding his own lunch, dreading sharing it with anyone else, and they were inspired by his sermon to pull their food out of hiding?
God I hope this is all I have to say right now.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 3:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"People know what they do (say). They frequently even know why they do what they do(say). But what they don't know is what they do (say) does.- Michel Foucault.
In the context of his Lectures on Abnormal the part where he talks about "Discourses that kill."
And before there was normal there was madness and no differentiation, no normal. Normal comes out of madness. Madness is not defined by normality all this is about 300 years old beginning with the Great Confinement in Europe. A genealogical look changes things doesn't it. Not a question.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well, I'm not saying that the notion of protest to protest is a conscious choice, it's probably not. It's more an unconscious thing, where people think that they're protesting because they want some change, but it's not an actual felt need. Greek protesters had a felt need, the Civil Rights Movement had a felt need. It was a movement that came about because the people doing the protest had something real to gain -- Greek protestors were trying to gain employment so their kids weren't going hungry, thus they weren't keen on "well, maybe things will get better". I see the same sort of things in the Black Civil Rights movement -- they needed rights so they wouldn't get lynched, so that their kids would have a shot at getting out of poverty, so they could vote. That's the thing.
OWS isn't that way, it's almost like in a lot of these movements, the protest is its own end. The point of a real protest is a real change, but it's not the same for some modern "rights movements" or with OWS. I sympathize with them, and if I saw any movement toward a change, I would be with them. If this is just a bunch of people who are unconsciously trying to have a Protest Moment, it's silly and ultimately counter-productive because if the movement for a good cause is more about the protest experience than about change, it undercuts the ability to get people to take those needs seriously. People hear about the OWS movement and they don't question whether they have good ideas, they picture people who are protesting to be protesting.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 8:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Present day protests really do no good except to say there are a lot of us who want X or who don't want Y or Z. The Vietnam protests were unique and unprecedented at the time and were effective in initiating a movement where many other things went on that the media knew nothing about. It was like an infection that permeated all the lives that wanted to be connected with it and even those that watched. It did produce change of certain things. Unlike the French protests that just disappeared into nothing. The Italian ones became quickly dangerous.
OWS is sophisticated enough to know that marching, making demands, having an agenda that you want the govt to acquiesce to is so yesterday. It is a template that has been co-opted by the political structure. They know how to deal with it. so that's what makes it ineffective. This is why OWS did not fall into that trap. They created a Debordian SPECTACLE and still are. A network has developed out of it and it has spread internationally and all over the US where you can't see it and don't know about it. The mainstream media is not covering this. They only cover spectacle. when that gets predictable they are on to something else.
OWS is not going to effect changes that you can see or hear about. They are working locally in small groups. The Occupy Sandy group was visible because the mainstream media covered it in a dire emergency they did not want the world to see another New Orleans where the govt fugged up so it was Occupy to the rescue showing Americans did care and did something on their own.
Most of the commentors here expect to see something "substantial" something OWS "won" or something backed away from. An object/act they can actually see, that is a "floating signifier" acting as a mask for EMPTY meaningless non change change.
Cronenberg making a movie of DeLillo's Cosmopolis in which there is a violent demonstration talked about the demo of OWS and that they just wanted a piece of the pie. He misread DeLillo's novel on the demonstration and he misread OWS. and then he had the stupidity of taking Rob Pattinson to Wall Street to ring the opening bell for trading. What an idiot. And Rob's manager Nick Frenkel engineered this because these people invest and that means finance filmmaking. At the same time Cronenberg and Pattinson lost potential fans of OWS, their friends, their family by stabbing DeLillo in the heart. OWS was/is not about a piece of the pie. It is about the end of cyber-capital, and, for some, the end of capitalism itself. It is free-enterprise we want, not capitalism. Ayn Rand confused these two concepts also.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 1, 2013 9:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
("What Deleuze and Guattari offer,
particularly in A Thousand Plateaus, is a logic capable of grasping Baudrillard's
failing world of representation as an effective illusion the demise of which
opens a glimmer of possibility. Against cynicism, a thin but fabulous hope--of
ourselves becoming realer than real in a monstrous contagion of our own
making. ")
http://www.brianmassumi.com/textes/REALER%20THAN%20REAL.pdf free download and it's very good.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 12:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
nb. I'm unfortunately not in the position to be objective about the necessity or relevance of all of the content below, but I figure at worst it's got to be fairly interesting. If it isn't, just skip ahead to the last few paragraphs because there's a point I want to make and it's a very good one. All the 5000 words leading up to it probably isn't all that relevant to the point but once I start talking about the CoG I've gotta dump and ditch it. You can do your own editing. The point I'm going to make is that I'm the only person I'm aware of who is in a rather unique position (obviously a pathetically insufficient sample size) to 'prove' the State and Religion are (as many firmly suspect) in the education business not to develop the minds of children but to explicitly destroy them.
Their motive should be patently obvious.
___________________
(1/2)
Do you know that wonderful book Lies My Teacher Told Me? Deconstructs all that trash they teach you and test you on in school.
I was not permitted an education; nothing terrifies slaveowners more than the prospect that their slaves might gain the capacity for Self-reliance and the Children of God were no exception. They were only right behind Josef Fritzl in their efforts to create the ultimate controlled environment. The motive, as always, is to ensure dependency.
Life inside the CoG communes were what you might call sheltered:
* no school
* no education
* no friends
* no sports
* no television
* no movies
* no radio
* no newspapers
* no magazines
* no computers or computer games
* no games
* no contact with the outside world unless absolutely necessary (like during a 'fundraising' [begging] drive).
* no books (with the exception of the Good Book, of course; the King James Holy Bible was the only book permitted and so I read it cover-to-cover three times by the age of 12. I had ADHD and with nothing else to read except nauseating Mo Letters [the cult leader's babbling fantasies about sex with babies and sex with his mother and how great incest is and how getting raped for Jesus is actually quite an honour and a privilege, etc - you might say I wasn't quite convinced but then the truth is, I never really listened to the 'arguments'** until last year because I blocked all that shit out instinctively during daily group readings] - but anyone who's read the Bible cover-to-cover will know that I'm not exactly being trite when I wonder if I wouldn't have been better off with the lurid cult propaganda smut. The Bible is simply the most vile piece of literature ever written; which is why they've printed eight billion [8,000,000,000] copies of it to use to corrupt the minds of anyone who makes the mistake you simply cannot afford to make with Spam. Spam's trick is that it just wants to be considered. Just consider Spam, Spam will be cool if it's not your thing. Spam will sit back once it's spammed you and collect because it's just a numbers game and you will lose the battle v Spam the moment you're exposed.)
* no fast food / sweets / chocolates / processed foods (we basically lived on soups and stews - all prepared by the children of course; they're not only good for fucking, you know? And when God had failed to provide food after the cult had sent 100% of income [massive incomes; government welfare because they care but they haven't heard of food stamps so they give cash to people like my parents - so much cash it's unbelievable really - it would all go to a a PO Box in Tenerife Is. and I once smirked and thought myself impossibly sardonic when I 'innocently' asked if that's where Jesus lived (inside the PO Box). I was too busy snickering to see that one coming but then you almost cannot afford to see insanity coming; no matter how often that backhand would tear across my face, I would never see it coming because if I did, it'd be a win for them. But I did have to stop being cheeky after a while because they weren't playing word-games and I was getting worried about the damage being potentially sustained by my face and its allergic reaction to being backhanded by a filthy whore - I break out in blood because the thing about whores is that they don't take off their wedding rings before they backhand their 'difficult' children.)
* no speaking unless spoken to (this rule was really only enforced when I would speak; towards the end, I was banned from speaking period for a number of months; they were playing a game of Pick 'n Choose from the Bible [which is what the Bible was literally designed for] but in that game, I was Federer. They'd volley a soft serve and I'd rip their dumb verses back past them for winners and send another 20 down before they had time to recover. These aren't theologians and neither are theologians; Christians are just sociopaths who want to leech and lean on children, so I had my racquet taken away and for half a year, I had a pencil & paper to write responses to questions asked of me. I was not permitted to ignite a conversation, not even a written question. It was fine, really; I was sick of talking to their 'logical' backhands anyway [literal backhands; the answer to every question I asked was violent and wordless]).
* no questions / doubts / concerns permitted in relation to the Pyramid / Patronage leadership structure; but self-doubt and self-flagellation and shame were strongly encouraged on an individual to individual basis however.
* total faith and absolute fealty required, but then I don't mean to suck eggs. Anyone who isn't a brain dead moron understands how cults 'work'; except for judges, magistrates, politicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, religious experts and defence barristers. They have no understanding, whatsoever. Apparently.
**The 'arguments' weren't very strong; but when you want to do something, you're just as bad as the CoG in terms of rationalisation and acceptance of logical fallacies. Here is an example of the kind of daily 'argument' I'd block out:
CHILD BRIDES! By Father David DO 902 4 April 1977 2. ...I've said before that I think the Lord must have been in favour of marriage at about 12 or 13 because you're first able to have children at that age. 6. ...But why did the Lord make you able to have children at the age of 11, 12 & 13 if you weren't supposed to have sex then? 19. IN INDIA THEY OFTEN HAD CHILD BRIDES AT SEVEN YEARS OF AGE! They can get married at that age! Then they could do all the fucking they want without having to worry about any kids until they are 12 years old! (Maria: And by that time they'll for sure be ready for some!) 24. IF KIDS WERE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED AS SOON AS GOD MADE THEM PHYSICALLY ABLE to get married & have children, they would be so busy working so hard taking care of kids, house & mate they wouldn't have time to even think about crime or all the other hanky-panky they get into! 25. OF COURSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TIME FOR A BIG EDUCATION EITHER. BUT WHO THE HELL NEEDS IT! 35. I BELIEVE GOD'S SYSTEM IS THE BEST! He made kids able to get married & have children at 12, 13 & 14, & if you ask me, He must have known that was the best age, because then they could kind of grow up with their own kids.
That's 'logic' about as solid as the 'logic' you use to justify the majority of your actions. But you gotta chuckle at that last one; who wouldn't want to grow up with your own kids? Somewhat ironically, that's kind of what girls who've been treated Right their entire life are doing when they become mothers. Emotional Toddlers breeding humans to manipulate and spar with.
But this is how dark the world is in which you live inside your bubbles of denial.
In nearly half a century of child molestation, the CoG / TFI has never - not once - lost a single legal proceedings.
Without options after the Australian government did this below (merely one example of the many hundreds of unfathomable breaches of due process), the children of the Children of God in Australia were forced to either remain in the cult or attempt to make a fist of their lives in a world that tends to look down its nose at candidates for employment that have never been to kindergarten or primary school. The government kind of put them behind the eight-ball; which can only be understood once you understand that the State is a Protection Racket with domestic exploitation as its primary focus.
You can only be exploited by Your Own; and the State and Religion literally rely on the abuse of children by terrible parents to hold onto power. Sometimes, it gets comically transparent; I believe the Australian government has been offering a $5000 cash bonanza for any mother who pops a bun out of the oven.
Because a girl or woman who has a baby for a $5000 cash incentive is what successful plantation-states are built upon.
When NSW / VIC humans intervened to save 140 kids I knew in the early 90s (they only missed one commune, curiously; a Channel 9 reporter told me years later that QLD Police had our commune under surveillance as well but pulled out without informing their southern colleagues on the morning of the pre-dawn raids), a Power that makes Cabinet ministers terrified intervened within a couple days. All the corruption is documented for anyone with eyes to see.
The CoG probably had every religious organisation on the planet rallying in its support. As one of the most fundamentally Christian of all Christian child molestation 'Protection' rackets (a great deal more Christian than the Catholic Church's racket, for example); the CoG has to be protected in its role as a forward operating post that acts as a buffer for the rest. Humanity could not be permitted to save the children being lovingly abused because if those humane police and welfare workers were allowed to present a single shred of the mountains of evidence they seized in court (there were not), well shit!
The entire house of cards that is the globe's religious child exploitation racket might come tumbling down. That's my theory for the mysterious Power that intervened in a way that explains the below....
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 12:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
(2/2)
___________________
The Age: Secret Cabinet deal killed Family caseThe Age/1994-04-29
By Alex MessinaA secret Cabinet decision made to end litigation involving the religious group the Family overruled the secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services, Dr John Paterson.
According to sources close to the case, the political directive to end the child-protection case was in spite of Dr Paterson's view that the case should proceed.
It is believed that Dr Paterson maintains the view that the department's evidence was strong and would have justified the protective concerns for 86 children from the Family, formerly known as the Children of God.
Once the deal was struck, Dr Paterson was gagged by the Minister for Community Services, Mr John. Dr Paterson has made no comments since the settlement. A spokesman for the department said he was uncontactable last night.
_____________________
He was a brave and noble human, that one. He was fired for attempting to rescue children from the cult I grew up in; I'm not sure what happened to him or if he's still alive but he would know a great many things that one imagines aren't conducive to remaining alive. Reading the transcripts of the Special Session of Parliament transcripts called by politicians to cover their exposed asses after something very powerful (powerful enough to make the Cabinet intervene and send all the children back to their molesters) is simply fascinating. Because what happened is the Police Commissioners and the DOCS Deputy Director were recorded bragging about how much evidence they acquired after their surveillance operation that lasted longer than a year. A memo was sent by NSW Police Commissioner Lauer to the Minister for Police & Emergency Services saying his office would soon be "flooded with evidence" seized earlier that day.
This evidence never materialised.
Reading the transcripts of the Attorney-General, the Minister for Police & Emergency Services and the Police Commissioner blaming each other for the evidence that everyone agreed had been seized but which had evaporated is a master class in political ass-covering. In conclusion, they finally managing to resolve to resolve absolutely nothing. It's brilliant. It might be the most fascinating transcripts you'll ever read (if you're into politics or this sort of thing).
This is a very dark world of murky corruption and nothing gets murkier than when religion and children are brought into the domain of the judicial 'process'. I've asked these questions of so many legal experts now, I think they've answered it with their silence but:
1. Why were the Victorian & NSW Cabinets intervening in due process?
2. With whom were the 'deals' forged, if the prosecution was categorically excluded from the 'deal-making'?
No child survives that kind of childhood without the ability to compartmentalise trauma and I went to ludicrous lengths to cut all ties with anything and anyone CoG-related, but occasionally my sister would tell me what I strictly ordered her not to bother doing because, quite frankly, what other result is possible? It's kinda predictable to the point of being redundant to point out, but of course they're dropping like flies.
The girls enter the sex industry. The boys have the option to become petty criminals or get lucky somehow...or commit suicide. What options did the State leave them with?
nb. I knew that kid very well. He was a good one, a fighter, a survivor; not a flake like so many. He didn't want to turn to petty crime or dealing drugs so he fought a duel with a semi-trailer doing 100kph with a predictable result. There's been a lot more who've taken their lives but in if you think about it, it's merely an issue of when rather than how they'll take their own lives.
_________________
Slave-owners do not like slaves learning things. Chris Rock does a great routine about the first African-American corner dealers selling pages of books rather than crack. It's comedy but it's so true. You cannot actually take power from someone; you can kill them and their power evaporates, you can incarcerate them and their power largely evaporates or is negated for a while - but you cannot take power from humans. To get power, you have to Confidence trick it away from humans (the US government are exceptionally good terrorists in tandem with the entire spectrum of media, which so cutely pretends to represent opposing viewpoints on every issue) or you have to make a deal with them where they give you their power in exchange for the right to [exploit Their Own]. They have to give their power away willingly or it's worthless. And to be that moronic (to give away your power), you have to be reduced so low that you basically either become obsessed with children or obsessed with fear. But most parents just cut a deal with their Patrons. Parents get the first 16-18 years of slavery, then the slaves are 'freed'. That's right. They are FREE.
To continue to be enslaved by their conditioning and by their unfathomable refusal to accept the dark truths of this world of predators and rapists - who are all pitiful tiny cowards, really - so everyone is raping Their Own. Mothers rape their children so brutally, it's just ridiculous that these raped victims will get emotional when you point out that their mothers never taught them anything except emotional poison.
Some of the more brutally raped sons could literally KILL you for pointing out such a blatantly obvious truth. "Not their mother. Their mother was an angle(sic)."
___________________
It took me a decade of confused denial before I finally accepted that my childhood wasn't nearly as different as I'd imagined it to be, in regards to the important variables.
* Everyone lied nearly all the time, mostly without even realising it.
* Might was perceived to be right for the sole reason that it cannot make a case so it has to use violence to 'persuade'.
* All the adults were trying to fuck each other and fuck all the children and so the children...you know what monkey humans see, they're going to do. We a mimicking species. It's absolutely brilliant to have your child mimic a role model who's been treated Right her entire life and knows literally nothing worth knowing; but is a world authority on love on lies and leaching. Just brilliant. This species couldn't faceplant any harder than it has.
* No one was happy but everyone was pretending to be because Turn that Frown Upside Down or there is something wrong with you.
* No one had a clue; everyone was literally too stupid to be plausible.
* So of course, that means they all Knew Best. Not only for themselves; the dumber the reduced human, the more likely they'll piously Know Best what you should be doing (to please them).
* My parents were imbecilic cowards with a terrifying belief in their entitlement to use violence to get their slaves to do what they were TOLD; just like most parents.
* Anything an imbecile doesn't instantly comprehend or understand is never revised or reconsidered or attacked from a new perspective; one of the most stunning similarities was when I discovered if I used a word which wasn't familiar to the geniuses who Knew Best (with a vocabulary of 3000 pidgin English emotional squeaks, grunts & moans), I'm automatically labeled insane. Just ask them. You won't need to. They'll know I'm insane because they don't understand what I'm saying. How could it be their problem? Clearly it's the other party that is insane. Every exploited mother - and every exploited child of every exploited mother - Knows Best. Religion arranged it to be that way.
I mean, apart from the exorcisms where I literally destroyed God, Jesus and the creepy Holy Ghost like 50-zip (and I make this point to hammer home the fact that religion isn't about religion; all those fine minds [even Nietzsche] simply didn't have my understanding of religion). I noted Abbey that you said Nietzsche wrote something different about God but you missed the point. You cannot appeal to a sociopath who believes they are God by talking about their religion as if it were anything but their pretext for exploitation - I would never have said something so stupid as what Nietzsche said about God. God is a pretext. You can't say a pretext is dead or appeal to the pretext to validate it's existence; it exists as a pretext for theft, rape, war and leeching.
I was exorcised over 50 times and I owned the face of the Holy Trilogy 100% of the time; so why weren't they falling on their faces to worship me? Nietzsche was brilliant but in some things, I understand more than he did. And you can never stoop down to the level of gutter rats to communicate with them. I think that's the mistake le Carre is presently making but then he's reaching more people with Truth than the 1.6 readers I have so I'm not ridiculing the man.
The only believers are imbecilic atheists and agnostics. Every subscriber to religion knows the score.
I'm getting to a point here and it's a pretty good one even if this lead-up might be superfluous; I lived in a bubble for a decade (partly the sensory deprivation of the cult trying to do a Josef Fritzl and partly my own little mind games to survive the hours of interminable boredom). But in many ways, my childhood was basically as normal as yours. I merely lived in a bubble. Every other child my age was exposed that entire time to influences like television's sleazy conditioning (teaching children how to feel by showing them how their heroes react - and just between you, I and the Obvious, they react so emotionally and never - ever - all that intelligently). The other kids were exposed to advertising campaigns, some of which would be dark subliminal shit (but it's all malicious Spam). The other kids were exposed to government or religious schools; long years of heavy education - 30-35 hours / week for 9-12 years that I missed out on.
This is all important because when I ran away at 14, I'd never had a day of school in my life. I enrolled in a government-funded state school and within a day I was made to be insane by my refusal to accept what appeared to be the reality; that I was the brightest person in the sprawling institution. I topped my first year of school (grade 10) which I slept through and never had time to study or do homework for. I used to think I was some kind of savant genius and when things weren't going well, I'd start to feel sorry for myself and bitterly rue what I imagined "could have been".
Hah.
If only I was given the same opportunities blah blah. I imagined I'd be Einstein if I didn't start from so far behind the field. It kinda made sense, if you ignore the emotional insanity that is feeling sorry for yourself.
Hah.
I assure you I don't do false modesty and I am no genius. No, the honest to Devil truth is I'm really more of a retard. If there was a scoreboard, Retard FC playing at home would be trouncing the struggling visitors. I'm so stupidly dull sometimes, I simply have to laugh or I'd be forced to cry. Or scream.
No, I understand now what I couldn't process, comprehend or make a lick of sense out of when I was 14. I'm not remotely gifted. I'm no genius. I was never a prodigy.
I just missed 14 years of malicious mind destruction; that's all. I went on to destroy some of the finest minds in the world on poker tables where if you're not concentrating at a very high level, you can drop 6 figures in less time than it would take you to read this 'comment' essay. But I'm no genius. I'm majority-owned by imbecility.
You need to take your kids out of school and smash the television sets; throw out the computer games that aren't educational, burn every novel that pertains to be lazy entertainment. Look, the alternative is that I am actually Einstein-level gifted. It's your call, genius.
Take your kids out of school and smash the entertainment industry's avenues of corruption that lead directly into their minds. That's assuming their minds haven't already rotted away to shit already; and considering the illiteracy of most parents, all I have to say to your children is that DH Lawrence never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself.
It would be a very shrewd endeavour if you thought of nothing else until you understood why.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 1:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see. Kenzaburo Oe Nip the Buds, Shoot the Kids. Don't know if you know him but he has autistic child that is with him while he writes, is a composer now and he stopped writing for a long time because he had to commit himself to his son and there was nothing and no one out there who could guide him or help him. The above is his first novel at age 22.
There is nothing for you to do but become a writer. Another kind of artist? I somehow don't think so. But I could be wrong. AND NO THERAPY PLEASE!
Genius and moron are irrelevant so let's not go there. I like Le Carre too but my favorite is still The Spy Who .....you know.
Well, just begin. If you don't, who will. You are the only one who can tell this story. The great danger we all face (Foucault again) is confinement. I see it all around me.Voluntary and involuntary. Not an accident The Hunger Games is the new young adult fantasy book and film right now. Confinement. Kenzaburo Oe's first novel is confinement of children under brutal conditions. Do not miss it. Do something with it. Read you experience through it and read Oe throuh your experience. The post modern way of reading a text. Only you can do that.You have been given a great gift. As Baudrillard says, "The gift received must be answered with the Counter-gift. The counter-gift does not have to be returned right away, but it must be returned or the receiver must suicide. The counter - gift must also be greater than the gift received.
This is our problem with 9-11. We have received the gift, but we have not answered with the counter-gift. Killing Bin Laden is NOT the counter-gift as that takes place in the Order of Production. The Symbolic Order rules. Symbolic Exchange and Death - Jean Baudrillard
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 2:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What I am going to say I have already said. But I am going to bring up Jaycee Dugard. A captive for 18 years, forced to bear 2 children, living in a tent in Philip Garrido's back yard. I am still haunted by her.
I have been doing a genealogy on another captive, Eunice Williams, taken by the Indians in the French and Indian wars, when the village of Deerfield Massachusetts was burned to the ground, its people murdered or taken into captivity and marched through the bitter cold from dawn on February 29,1704 to Montreal. Hers is a long and unbelievable story. Since I already was thinking genealogically when she emerged I began in my mind to link her story to Eunice Williams. What emerged was a truth so glaring that all my neo liberal belief system crumbled into dust. I was able to see both the extreme right and the extreme left and understand both sides now to steal a line from Joni Mitchell.
The events of both captivities, separated by 300 years, allows an emergence of an astonishing real awareness of North American history, its changes, the mentality of its citizens that left me speechless. All the kings horses and all the kings men could not find Jaycee Dugard and gave her up for dead. Only a woman campus cop noticed anything. In Eunice Williams case, she was complicit and grew up in an Indian family who refused to turn her over and she refused to be turned over. Her awareness is a religious awareness as her father was the great pastor John Williams, her mother the niece of Cotton Mather from our history books. Her father's desperation in their one meeting where she refuses to speak English or say anything to her father, his is to save her soul from immortal damnation, but the sophisticated Jesuit pries in Montreal has won her from her Puritan upbringing, her future to be married to another famous preacher, a woman with everything to be had at that time, and instead choosing to be married to a heathen Indian. But what a man he was. A double agent, an Iroquois, skilled in English and French and his own language. The priest did not want them to marry as he was averse to the racial mixing of this high priority captive. He stonewalls them. they finally tell him that they would like him to marry them, to bless them in the eyes of the church, but no matter, they are bound to each other if he chooses not to. So he marries them. The story goes on and she never forgives her father for marrying again so soon after her mother fell in the icy stream so soon after her childbirth, and was tomahawked to death. A better end. Her father and his God could not save her mother, so what good was his God. An Indian for some reason carried her on his shoulders all the way to Montreal when most others her age perished on the journey. Her father was not so physically fit. But she is found about the same way Jaycee is found and makes her peace with her family after her father's death and her descendants have visited Deerfield. Austrians I beleive have written an opera about her.
Jaycee is found, returned to her stupid mother who then shows a video of her making cookies with her sister. Sshe receives extensive therapy but for once seems to have lucked out since it consisted mostly of riding horses while they talked I guess. a beautiful girl when released who shone, less than a year later with her mother becomes fat and doughy faced. Writes a book that after all the media begging her to do so immediately, doesn't sell by the time she publishes it. I haven't read it yet. Her children should have and could have gone to the Steiner Waldorf Schools but no body around them was smart enough to suggest that so they went to public school. I have lost track as the story ending is just too sad for me to want to follow it.
Here was a very spiritual girl when released. She had a story to tell like no other. The labeling of her as damaged, desperately in need of years and years of therapy, which she seems to have bought into is just evil. There is no one living on the planet today that isn't here because of multiple rapes of our female ancestors. there is nothing new about this under the sun. And Jaycee Dugard is the one person now who is capable of enlightening us about this in fictionalized form as opposed to non fictional memoir.
Here's what I have written about her: http://twocaptives.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-captivesjaycee-dugard-and-eunice.html The second blog post is reading her through Savage's fanfiction Hide and Drink but if I put 2 links here it will go into moderation for a long while I think. But it's right there to be read after this first blog post.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 4:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny, you haven't eliminated your mother or your need for a mother. You've just sexualized her and also split her off in 200 directions and variants to serve your purposes. The problem is, how well is that bitch serving your purposes really?
I haven't needed a mother ever. I was unwanted, initially. I was supposed to have been a gift to her controllers, much like every child is a mother's sacrificial lamb to the Public-at-Large - fattened by emotional lies and marinated tender - perfect for exploitation and presented as a token gift to Polite Society all trussed and bound and hopelessly exploitable and confused by the filthy lies.
"You're in pink? Congratulations!" actually means "Dinner is about to be served. Well done."
Mothers who have heard me make this claim (that I've never had a mother nor needed one) completely misinterpret what I'm saying. They tell me how sorry they are, they tell me how every child needs a mother. They don't actually explain their logic for making such outlandish claims and when pressed, they're unable to rationalise or defend their position. It's just something they've convinced themselves of over the years; when they were too busy getting treated Right to increase the value of their mind.
But they're insane.
My mother was initially too busy being one of God's Whores (quite literally) to care much whether I lived or died. This was a brilliant stroke of luck and I lived a few idyllic years exploring my fascinating world. I remember eating dirt once and hating myself because I had my doubts, serious doubts; but for some reason I decided it was worth a shot. Instant self-hatred and spitting at losing the gamble but but then I laughed. No harm done. I wasn't going to ever do that again. I never put myself in danger because it's a cute lie how mothers have convinced the world that their children are suicidal or too stupid not to be. This is utter nonsense.
The only times I became seemingly suicidal was when she played these little tricks on me. Society plays these tricks on everybody, actually. I had never, in all my years, contemplated crossing the road because I'd seen these massive death machines fly past and I'd seen roadkill and connected the dots and shivered. Clearly that dog had done what I was too smart to do.
Or so I thought. One day, though I couldn't have told you why at the time, I impulsively decided to bolt across the road just when a car was coming. The car screeched, it was all likely a great deal less dramatic than it seemed at the time; but my mother came flying over to pick me up and comfort me and apart from wondering why she imagined it was the driver's fault (who looked as horrified as I felt) I definitely remember feeling very frightened and grateful and suddenly safe in her arms.
Suddenly I was confused about things I had been very certain about. I remember thinking "I should listen to her; she really knows her stuff."
But you know why I suddenly became 'suicidal', don't you? Do you know why people kill other people? Rape other people? Bear false witness? Covet their neighbour's junk? Covet their neighbour's wife's trunk? Do you know why people take the Lord's Name in vain? Do you know why laws are broken? You do know. Everyone just plays dumb because they want to trick children with their 5000-year-old pathetic religious reverse psychology 'games'. No one is so stupid that they don't know why humans break rules and laws. Only the victims who commit crimes of passion are clueless. It's cute how yall tell them they're sane to kill their daughters and that. You know, for honour and things that do not exist outside the imaginations of the emotionally insane. They're just victims of their sociopathic mothers who trussed them up to please Polite Society.
We break rules and laws for the same reason that I suddenly felt an inexplicable impulse to run across a road when there was nothing I needed or could want on the other side. I ran for no reason; the textbook definition of insanity. But I wasn't insane. I'd merely done an insane thing. I'd just fallen for the oldest trick in the Book. I'd done something dangerous on impulse for absolutely no reason; when I'd never before considered doing anything so maniacal. This is the reason why I almost died (or imagined that I did).
That filthy whore had just warned me not to be insane. For no reason, she felt compelled to order me not to do something insane (run across the road). Now why would anyone do something so insane as order someone not to be insane, unless they wanted that person to put themselves in harm's way? This is the question no one asks of the law. The insane aren't going to be deterred; they're not in control of their actions. So the law that tells people not to kill is targeted at those who weren't planning on killing anyone. It's all about generating confusion. Spinning humans out of control with passion so that they can be controlled via emotional manipulation.
That filthy predator was telling me not to do something insane knowing that I would feel compelled to defy her. She knew something about human nature I did not know at that early age of four or whatever. She knew humans were coded not to be slaves; we were coded to reject insane orders; to defy insane authority; to rebel against those who would make us their slaves with their insane ordering us around.
She knew I would instinctively want to defy her. So when a car was coming, she ordered me not to be insane. And impulsively, I did what she told me not to do because humans are not coded to be slaves.
I heard this story once or read it perhaps in some Book and it went something like this:
Moses was trying to get the Chosen People to kill for him, so he said "Thou Shalt Kill." And they laughed, told him to get lost. "Kill yourself", someone yelled out, to a ripple of laughter from the crowd. Moses was so furious, his forehead veins were pulsating furiously. He blushed beetroot red and stormed away.Humans were not coded to be slaves. Our DNA is coded to be contrarian, argumentative, critical, suspicious, rebellious, petulant, disobedient, stubborn, difficult; this is entirely natural and sane - if we didn't have these protections, we'd all comply with the the first psychopath who ordered us all over a cliff.
We were coded to reject authority.
So 40 days later, Moses came back and said "Thou Shalt NOT Kill."
And Humanity went over the cliff.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 5:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As for the quote, Raylene just likes to muck around in the "psychological swamp of interpretation". Wild Psychoanalysis as Freud called it in his paper of the same name. She won't quit so I am ignoring.
Yes quite right as to the shalt nots. God knew what he was doing when he told Adam and Eve they could eat anything in the garden BUT the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. We can read this story as his wanting them to disobey. Watch this in any supermarket.
Baudrillard has been sliced to pieces for offering complicity between the victim and the perpetrator: the hostage and the kidnapper; slave and master; (beautifully done in Django)etc.
Analysis calls it the negatively suggestible person. They are easily manipulated because you tell them to do the opposite of what you want them to do. Or you can join their resistance and agree with them. But it won't work unless you really have those feelings. Paradoxical intention and Greene the great hypnotist therapist used it superbly.
It's kind of round about to go through insane and coding to arrive at the same destination. Occam's Razor: simplest and most elegant.Insane BTW is a clinical legal term in the Order of Production. Divine madness is something else in the Symbolic Order of Seduction.
Impulse control. Playing childhood games like Red Rover Red Rover all the Greens come over etc is an impulse inhibition game. As is statues when you swing someone around and then they have to freeze in that position. Red Light, Green Light. And others.
Obviously your mother was psychotic, mad, insane, whatever. Congratulations on running away. What happened first after you knew you had gotten away with it?
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
March 2, 2013 3:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
How did you educate yourself? How did you become a writer? Tell us tell us.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
March 4, 2013 9:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
for johnny,
you don't really need to read this.
http://ceciliasartandthings.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/sinner/
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
March 4, 2013 7:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dear Doctor It’s been three solid years of medicating my daughter and walking the long road towards what might be best for her. One thing I need to be sure of, is that I’m not turning her into some conformist. If I am taking pieces of her individuality away, even if only according to my own moral system, it would be a sin.
So what the hell are you, A Perfect Mother?
Sounds like it.
I ask every mother I meet some questions, they usually can't make it through the first, which is: What was your motive for bringing Life into a world that does not sustain the Life it has? (So that's kinda two questions, obviously; with the second question relating to adoption)
And I ask them (but obviously I already have your answer) What would be more important; that your child is [a heralded, celebrated success] or [a despised failure who is happy having fun without hurting anybody]?
nb. They were all lying for this question until I added "despised", which has no impact on the question whatsoever. But now they all tell the truth. I find that kind of funny. I believe this question is phrased perfectly. Mothers ramble these demented presumptive answers but it's a simple question about values and most mothers just do not care about their children's happiness. They'll lie of course, and swear black and blue otherwise whilst every action reveals the truth of their sociopathic priorities. Most mothers are filthy, just filthy beasts incapable of even faking "humane". But then I imagine a lifetime of acid can do that to a girl. Fucking religious sociopaths obliterated this world with their demented assertions that what is biological and natural could somehow be a sin. No reasoning given. In the Bible, there is no logic. Just insanity and assertions of absolutely insane 'truths'; so transparently designed to ensure misery it's literally hilarious.
And the last question I ask them is Why has your child not been made independent yet?
nb. If you're making any decisions at all for her, she's not independent. She can be living with you, you can be supporting her, I don't care about trivial or procedural shit; this is a question about free will and Self. If you decide anything for her at all, she's not independent.
I'm interested in your answer to this last question, in particular.
________________________
"If you don't mind blah blah" [insert worthless insulting patronising caveats and givens here].
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 4, 2013 9:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not Cecilia. I follow her blog and thought you might find it interesting to browse through it. It is not a straightforward thing. Nor trivial, I imagine. I don't know the details, other than what can be discerned from her posts.
There are no perfect mothers/parents/people. But it is true that some parents/people do not question or doubt. Themselves, their views, positions, experiences...they are just perfect where they are. When you're a parent, self-doubt is a scary thing. Or it applies to humans in general.
That's what Žižek writes about imbecilles, that they do not know, but that they know that they do not know.
I come from an ex communist country, you know, raised within the ideology of religion is the opium for the masses. Different kind of acid.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 4, 2013 10:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I love your blog! So many great articles... I thought you might like to know that Dentist.net is offering 10% off their products with the code ORALCARE :)
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 5, 2013 3:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You ask people,
"What was your motive for bringing Life into a world that does not sustain the Life it has?"
How would you solve this? You mentioned you may have the means but not the will. I'm interested in how you would respond to one who either had the will or desired to instill it in you.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
March 5, 2013 4:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Cathars in the middle ages believed that the world was evil and that it was a sin to bring children into the world. There were two levels of believers: celibate and non-celibate. At this time Courtly Love came to the court of France and later to the British Isles by Eleanor of Aquitaine and her troubadours and the ritual of Courtly Love entered Western Civilization ONLY. It was at this moment in time that the sacred and sex merged, and only in Western Civilization. All rituals of courtship, betrothal, and marriage were intertwined in these practices. Passion /Love came into being coupled with forever love united only in Death (Wagner's Tristan and Isolde). The extension of passion with chastity and no consummation, thus no possibility of conception and birth. Just undying love and passion consummated in death where the two would be forever united.
This legend rules courtship and sexual practices in the Western World for 800 years until THE PILL CUT into it. If you wish an analytic description of how this is instilled then read De Rougemont's Love in the Western World. But Rome did not want this sect to continue and instituted the Inquisition to seek the offenders out, to destroy them, to destroy all its teachings.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 5, 2013 10:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not Cecilia. I follow her blog and thought you might find it interesting to browse through it. It is not a straightforward thing. Nor trivial, I imagine. I don't know the details, other than what can be discerned from her posts.
Oh ok I assumed for some reason the blog was yours and the mother was you. I agree it's not a trivial blog; the artist sounds very intelligent but then - I dunno - I feel stupid saying this as I would do this exact thing all the time; but it disappoints me when I'm all impressed with someone and then they say something seemingly retarded and I'm just unable to continue. For this potentially intriguing artist and her blog, that moment came when some guy she'd admired for a long time scolded her and made up some transparently manipulative-sounding 'rule' she clearly perceived as the compliment it was clearly intended to be (probably to split her legs) and she felt it important enough to include in her About Me page.
I dunno. I just couldn't read past that point.
There are no perfect mothers/parents/people. But it is true that some parents/people do not question or doubt. Themselves, their views, positions, experiences...they are just perfect where they are. When you're a parent, self-doubt is a scary thing. Or it applies to humans in general.
Yes but it's not perfection that this world has a trouble with, is it? We're struggling at the other end of the scale. There are almost no mothers/parents/people who can make the case for why they should be permitted to remain alive when they're lying non-stop and leaning on everyone they come across.
Sociopaths are certain. Only sociopaths ever Know Best. Anyone who never questions or doubts would be so insane you should probably just put them down and logically, it would impossible to be an inhumane error. Never questions or doubts? In a world where not only does no one know a damn thing, the vast majority of what we imagine we know is bullshit? Never questions or doubts? Are they religious? Kill them.
There is nothing frightening about self-doubt; except for the fact that you cannot trust a single mirror on this planet so you're literally compelled to self-doubt whilst simultaneously compelled to reject the vast majority of reviews incoming from those who cannot produce anything of value or interest.
Parents don't have self-doubt because they're sociopaths.
That's what Žižek writes about imbecilles, that they do not know, but that they know that they do not know.
Zizek is an imbecile. I could embarrass him all day, if he wanted a lesson in logic. He's not very good at it and my credentials are kind of...it's not important. Alone has 50 x the mind that I have. Alone has the brightest mind on the planet than I'm aware of and I'll be glad if it turns out there are 100,000 brighter than Alone.
Zizek is an imbecile. I don't know why anyone quotes morons like him at all. He says some things that are like obviously true and borderline insightful but only because no one really understands even the most simplest things yet; but we're not talking anything ground-breaking. Nothing he says is remotely as perceptive as Alone's insight because Zizek is insane enough to imagine that there is a point in pursuing the abstract when - as a species - we cannot even get the most basic things right.
Like you know, the emotional insanity of which he is a prime example.
Zizek: I like this idea of sex as part of love, you know: 'I'm ready to sell my mother into slavery just to fuck you for ever.'
He's too stupid to perceive the exploitability of that emotion he values and the world considers him a leading thinker?
I've got 10 x the mind that imbecile has and Alone has 50 x the EQ that I have.
I come from an ex communist country, you know, raised within the ideology of religion is the opium for the masses. Different kind of acid.
The acid is only about girls and sex. Or at least, I'd prefer it if we kept it limited to that reference because there is nothing more important in the world than the liberty of girls to be who they're biologically designed to be. Natural. Sane. Emotionally stable. Unashamed.
Communists don't have a huge problem with sex outside religious marriage, do they?
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
March 5, 2013 10:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
("Zizek: I like this idea of sex as part of love, you know: 'I'm ready to sell my mother into slavery just to fuck you for ever.'")
Zizek is using irony here. This is not something he means.
I think Cecilia art is extraordinary so I also was surprised at the internal contradiction in what she said.
The world is mad. It is run by sociopaths, by madmen for their own gain. It is important to see that before anything can be done.I have no answers. But we can't even begin to ask the questions to consider solutions before we can observe.
Baudrillard has said that children are the most exploited class of people there are. Until that hits people between the eyes, it will continue. Yes parents are mostly horrible. State control of children would be more horrible still. Even if it started out OK it would deteriorate into hell.
I have no solution. I only see the horror we have.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 6, 2013 12:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny,
I want to thank you for your honesty. It's so rare for anyone to have the courage to voice their actual thoughts, and you've given me a lot to think about.
Your opinion on women is quite interesting, and I've thought about it a lot. What will foster a stronger sense of false identity (narcissism) then being told to subordinate the strongest physical desire in your life for absolutely -no- reason? What hope do you have to recognize reality after enslaving yourself that way?
I really appreciate the writing you're doing here.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
March 6, 2013 2:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I try to be true. I don’t believe in the shiny veils of lies. This is a truth, some truth. Us living and then dying. Everything is always personal, it is my job, my profession to be personal. An impersonal art is only skill."
"My work is about documenting my awkward truth, I try and capture/express my world with as much honesty as I can. I keep track of what life teaches me. I realized, after producing for about ten years, that I am not an artist.
There’s a certain duty due to being an artist, a duty to show and tell. I wish to produce an art free of galleries and scrutiny. I am only a virtual exhibitor, a ‘blogger’. My personal confessions and revelations have nothing to do with art. It’s not a sellable product, it’s web-based, not the kinda thing you really want on your wall.
I would like to make a living, to sell, with what I do. But if selling was my primary concern, the creation would change, and I think it’s safe to say that, if anything interferes with the integrity of my work, it can move along and fuck right off."
These were some of the things written in About section below the 'rule' (which, btw, I haven't read as a 'rule', especially given how she's 'selling'her work at present on the virtual streets of www).
During the war there was a French man I worked with who worked in Romania before coming to the next 'big' thing, Bosnia in the 90ies. Working in Romanian orphanages. Causescu was a religion. Another French man, Boris Cyrulnik wrote about resilience. "If we fight misfortune, what weapons do we have?" so he wrote about weapons Romanian orphans have.
Yes, Žižek is an imbecile, that was kinda the reason why I quoted what he wrote, about imbeciles as distinct from morons (in knowing that they do not know).
It's not perfection, it's thinking of oneself as perfect ( as in perfect where one is/how one is/with what one knows,or perfect in ignorance... a very adult notion, adults are formed therefore adults,the development finished).
Can we extend acid to boys as well?
Another war story, Cecilia's "Dead Doctor" actually initially reminded me of it. I'd write sth like prayers in my diary, addressed not to god but to universe, like, I'm sending this plea and can you, whatever you are, make it stop. I wasn't in any serious life threatening situation, mind you, but still.
Of course, there can be no answer to what Cecilia wrote, no certainty. Just her, wording her doubt and sharing it honestly in all it's contradiction (though maybe pointlessy, as what's the point of writing anything other than initially satisfying personal impulse or need without any certainty it will ever reach beyond that). I guess I'm saying that I like her EQ.
And I'm throwing in another Žižek quote. Not ironic, this one.
"Love is not idealization. Every true lover knows it. If you really love, a woman or a man, you don’t idealize him or her. Love means that you accept a person with all its failures, stupidities, ugly points, and, nonetheless, the person is absolute for you, everything that makes life worth living, but you see perfection in imperfection itself. And that is how we should learn to love the world." There was a really good piece he wrote on marriage, can't manage to find it.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 8, 2013 5:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
For the record, this is the longest TLP's gone without a new post since 2005.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
March 8, 2013 9:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's not strictly speaking "no reason", up until the pill and contraception became a possibility, women were at the mercy of their biology. If you had sex, you could be pregnant, and if you were pregnant and unmarried, it would most likely mean a lifetime of both you and your kid struggling for mere survival, and it's still somewhat like that, though not quite as bad (you get foodstamps rather than starve to death). So of course, if you're a woman in that situation, you can't just have sex for recreation, as that could mean pregnancy. So women were taught as girls to not have sex unless it was safe for them to become pregnant.
Today, I'd agree, it's probably no longer necessary to tell girls to fear their sexual natures, but it takes a while for culture to catch up to science.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 8, 2013 3:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah, but as Baudrillard says, women are "liberated," but they are no longer "free". They can no longer say, "No." They have no rationalization for saying no. And if they do he moves on. High school girls want to date and other girls put the social pressure on them to experience it, boys put the pressure on them to do it, and if they don't want to yet, they have nowhere to go anymore. As a result we have lots and lots of meaningless sex that is erotic and porno, with no real feelings. This is what Twilight uncovered. Courtly Love was the paradigm for 800 years based on the Tristan and Iseult legend. THE PILL was a Foucauldian CUT into the History of Sexuality (Foucault's 3 vol books) Here's what I wrote on it: http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2011/10/reading-twilight-through-foucauldian.html
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 8, 2013 4:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe we are doing something right and maybe alone is interested.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 8, 2013 4:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Saw Silver Linings Playbook the other night and this is my review. Tiffany makes an intervention of classic Lacanian chain of signifiers and resolves Pat sr's psychosis reistance. As good an anything Dolto ever did. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/03/review-silver-linings-playbook.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 11, 2013 11:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Noticed this. Hope all is well in the land of 'alone'.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 11, 2013 11:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Noticed this as well. Hope everything's alright in the land of 'alone'.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 12, 2013 7:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I would love too see an equivalent male public debate: does facial hair make people take you seriously at work? Too tie or not to tie? These questions aren't taken as seriously as the makeup debate for some reason. I'm trying to work out if this article indicates any action that should be taken. Don't be a reactionary feminist but also don't sit by and let people get raped. Hm, if only my real life experience presented my with such clear cut options and not a lot of grey area. Don't watch Girls is perhaps the only action recommended. As for what should women do for a career in order to gain power? The only solution I have been able to come up with in my own life is follow your interests. Not your skills: that's a trick to make you doubt your abilities. I don't think we should be chasing power jobs and pay checks like dogs chasing the rabbit at the track. If that is what men really go down for then great, they can keep it. The system's typical response to resistance is to absorb it, that doesn't mean resistance is futile, because the result might be a system that is a bit friendlier to you. As for, 'women are just happy to get the job', I know a lot of men who have been happy to just get the job during the recession, perhaps this is just more common in women because its harder for them to get the job in normal circumstances. You do get a bit beat down by it, I don't think its anything to feel guilty about. Sincerity, honestly and a lack of guilt is what I generally aim for. They are qualities that the power hungry don't possess and it completely baffles them.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 12, 2013 9:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
All these questions are directed at someone who is going for a job job and I think that's the problem. An artist is someone who has figured out the human obsolescence game. Understand that you are here for obsolescence. What every job you do has obsolescence programmed into it. You will become obsolete. It is ordained. The fact that you are thinking about a tie or not a tie, makeup of no makeup means that you have not understood the trap that is sprung for you. It is ready and waiting for you. Do what you love, what interests you and find a way to do it with others of like mind or by yourself.Job jobs no no.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 14, 2013 10:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
this thread is still going on?
that's it. i'm not buying pizzas for you anymore. you want to eat? get a job and pay for it yourself.
people like you turn people like me into republicans.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 15, 2013 5:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If we get rid of all the emotionally needy that is everyone, dolt. Cretin. Doofus. God, I hope you use condoms every time. maybe next time, use 2 or 3 rolled right on top of each other.
I just understood what you were trying to say.
Why does someone have to die to eliminate insane need for non-existent feelings from their imaginations? Lies create emotional needy. Truth can unimagine what the lies of mothers who imagined a need to emotionally manipulate their children, led their children to imagine (needy dependency, needy emotional validation).
The mother of every cutter should be terminated humanely. No investigation needed.
Confusion creates imagined needy.
Understanding eliminates imagined needy.
Religion is built on the rock of human suffering so it needs that imagined needy; it's literally what all those corrupted emotions were constructed for. Religion imagines it needs human stupidity but all their needy is imagined as well. You know Moses wasn't sane, right? He was the neediest sociopath in history. But if you think a Cardinal or a Pope is happy...55
Toddlers are their emotional superiors.
The need for what does not exist resides inside of your imagination; it was placed there by lies. When you understand who placed it there and why, you will understand why you don't need those emotional rootkits (set up to be accessed remotely) existing inside your imagination; allowing someone like me (or a middle schooler) to come along and manipulate you into suffering by using MEAN words.
If you're very, very lucky; you might realise you don't need the validation of a Polite Society of snivelling liars - do you know how much they lie!? - so their opinions are as valuable as you are insane. Imagine that you don't need the approval of the insane, and something entirely boring and generic and magical can happen for you.
You won't need to be a victim of their inflicted pain again.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 15, 2013 8:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, starting at the begining, I think the reason that women's dress is an issue is that we're used to the idea of critiquing women's clothing. Women are still objects, so it matters how they look. (also why we're much more creeped out by hebeplilia on boys than on girls that alone talked about in an earlier post on pedophilia -- women are sexual objects, so desiring one too young is weird but not as bad as wanting a boy of the same age) We're outraged at Sandusky because he treated males as sex objects, but had they been girls, no problem. Men's appearance also doesn't matter because no one is looking at a man as a potentially sexy object -- they're leaders or business people, and since they're around to "get things done" no one gives a fig about beards, hair color (other than whether too much grey is a problem) or other stuff like that.
As far as action, my thing is that women should be about taking on the hard stuff. Women want the option to be in combat, but there are good reasons to suppose that this isn't a real thing. Mostly that it's optional for women and required for men. The same women who are fighting to fight are not talking about the draft at all. Think about that -- women are taking the good parts (serve in combat for promotions) while retaining the privileges of being the "fair sex" -- they'll never HAVE TO do any of it. My advice is that women should be fighting for the chance to prove that they can handle the negative side. If you think women should be in combat -- register for the freaking draft, don't make it freaking optional. Women aren't taken seriously for that reason -- they don't demand to be taken seriously when it makes things harder for them.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
March 15, 2013 10:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for taking the time to write such a great and long article!!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 15, 2013 6:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The theme of the movie The Master.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 15, 2013 7:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My problem with this whole article is that make-up, appearance is just such a tiny part of Simulation. In fact it is the obvious part acting as a mask for all the other parts that are really serious that are simulacrum.For example the judicial system. Go into any municipal court and you see it is just a simulacrum of the idea of justice. It is all a facade. It is all "make-up." So we have this log thread about make-up as if it were really important - it is a metaphor for the important if you get it.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 16, 2013 3:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As usual you didn't bother to look anything up ordo any fact checking.
Here is your remarks, then my response.
March 15, 2013 8:57 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Dovahkiin: | Reply
Well, starting at the begining, I think the reason that women's dress is an issue is that we're used to the idea of critiquing women's clothing. Women are still objects, so it matters how they look. (also why we're much more creeped out by hebeplilia on boys than on girls that alone talked about in an earlier post on pedophilia -- women are sexual objects, so desiring one too young is weird but not as bad as wanting a boy of the same age) We're outraged at Sandusky because he treated males as sex objects, but had they been girls, no problem. Men's appearance also doesn't matter because no one is looking at a man as a potentially sexy object -- they're leaders or business people, and since they're around to "get things done" no one gives a fig about beards, hair color (other than whether too much grey is a problem) or other stuff like that.
As far as action, my thing is that women should be about taking on the hard stuff. Women want the option to be in combat, but there are good reasons to suppose that this isn't a real thing. Mostly that it's optional for women and required for men. The same women who are fighting to fight are not talking about the draft at all. Think about that -- women are taking the good parts (serve in combat for promotions) while retaining the privileges of being the "fair sex" -- they'll never HAVE TO do any of it. My advice is that women should be fighting for the chance to prove that they can handle the negative side. If you think women should be in combat -- register for the freaking draft, don't make it freaking optional. Women aren't taken seriously for that reason -- they don't demand to be taken seriously when it makes things harder for them.
Wow. Where to start.
I think it is fair to say men and women are both objects as far as appearance goes; I don’t know that women hold a special place in that regard any longer. I believe the conventional wisdom goes that women were desired for their beauty and men for their success or power. I think now the case is that both women and men are desired for their success and also for their beauty. I don’t think that is just how people portray it; I really think that is the case. If being desired for your beauty makes you an object, both men and women are now both objectified.
Correct me if I am mistaken, I paid a minimum of attention to the Sandusky case, but a mere glance at Wikipedia tells me he anally sodomized a ten year old boy, among other things. I think it is fair to say that any man who sodomized a ten year old girl would be held accountable.
Sandusky used his position as a trusted adult figure to in some cases forcibly attack and in others to groom and apply pressure to young, impressionable boys for sexual favors. He was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse of young boys. I think it is fair to say that both men and women found guilty of committing comparable crimes to victims of either gender would be held accountable. Sandusky was a poor example to choose if what you want to say is that sexual abuse of girls by adult men is underprosecuted, however. That case was just so outrageous. But one could easily argue that sexual abuse of girls by adult males is actually overreported as well. Given that many young girls consent to sexual behavior with adult men--- to be clear, I don’t mean ten year olds, I mean teenagers--- and given that these men can still in some cases be prosecuted. I doubt the false consents are as high in other populations.
Men, many men, don’t think about morality in a very complex way or don’t think about it at all. This is why you see much older guys dating jailbait. To a lot of guys, the minute she is 18, she is legal, regardless of any other considerations such as maturity and other things that factor in to readiness for sexual activity. But it’s not, I don’t think, because of a sexism problem, that we find older men being attracted to young girls more acceptable; it is an overall morality problem where people just don’t think these issues through. I really think framing it in terms of gender obfuscates the issues and puts us at risk for things devolving even further to the state most gender arguments end up, which is the lowest common denominator, e.g. now both men and women can express their interest in banging some bait. Actually, we are already seeing some of this, sort of, with older women drooling over Robert Pattison .(Ithink that’s his name) and being preoccupied with Twilight. Perhaps.
I don’t know what part of the world you live in, ---I’m going down your list of assertions in order—but men care now about their fingernails, clear nail polish, hair removal, waxing, and junk like that. To say ‘nobody gives a fig’ is ridiculous. Again, what we see here is that now both men and women are doing the same things, fussing about their cuticles and whatnot. And men get denied jobs in healthcare, I know, sometimes for simply having a beard, the same way women can’t have long painted fingernails in healthcare. I don’t know, but I do know that for sure men are getting into picky little grooming issues now, such as cuticles and stray hairs.
The assertion that if women want to be taken seriously they should go to war is one of the things that allegedly led women to leave the home and go out to work like men. Why they didn’t just laugh is beyond me because what any man has to say about how to be a woman is automatically suspect. Out of respect, I try to just mind my own business about a lot of guy stuff, also because it might not be very attractive stuff, I’m not sure and don’t want to know. But in any case, there are a lot of things that are difficult about being a female in a traditional female role. My mom stayed home and my dad worked. I don’t know about other households, but I know about mine.
This is generally what I was taught men were responsible for:
Bringing in money, maybe mowing the lawn on weekends, maybe building a deck or doing some small repairs, and staying sober for the kids.
This is what I was taught women were responsible for:
Managing all the money. Women were the ones who buy the food, clothing, cleaning supplies, and generally ran the household, so they had to manage the money. They had to make sure things were insured. They had to feed--- in my mother’s case, 7 people--- 3 meals 7 days a week, and they had to do it on budget. Let’s talk about what it takes to feed 7 people--- that is 21 meals a week. Let’s just take that one thing.
Meals were supposed to be nutritious, balanced and healthy. They were supposed to taste good, something your kids and husband would eat. They were also supposed to be economical.
Interestingly, there was no childhood obesity problem back then. Kids didn’t have high cholesterol and developing metabolic syndrome--- hypertension, diabetes---- at young ages. And eating out was a novelty, pretty much.
My mother fed 7 people around 1976 for about $200.00 a week, I believe it was. I could literally talk about how to do this right and write a textbook. It’s not easy. It’s very hard to do. And she didn’t do hardly anything that was from a box. We bought our bread ready-made and our cereal. That was kind of it.
And then there were making sure the kids got off to school, handling disciplinary problems, homework. In my family, one of the big rules was to keep my dad happy since he earned all the money and worked hard all day, so my mom kind of dealt with everything on her own as much as possible and made us be quiet and well-behaved and preferably largely out of sight when Dad was home. So all that good behavior had to be taught, by her, to us. That’s another thing: anything related to interpersonal behavior, such as how to communicate and have manners, was all taught by mom. Also anything related to hygiene and health and exercise and all of that.
My mother also handled niceties, like reminding Dad to show up at school functions and organizing birthdays and Christmas and Easter baskets and all of our religious and moral education. If the school needed a volunteer or money she was the one who did it. She was the one who was supposed to help us develop psychological stability and a healthy relationship to our emotions.
She also had to try to keep Dad happy (and sober). Basically, women used to have this idea you had to be happy and cheerful for everybody and also pretty all the time. You were supposed to try to get your husband to do the right things without telling him what to do, because men were thought to have these huge defense systems and very fragile egos that had to be protected at all costs. So you had to always let him think he was right even though you might not think this is the case, at all.
I’m not going to assign value to that; I’ve never been married, I have no idea, I am clueless. But does it sound like a tough job? As tough as going to war? Probably. In a different way. Absolutely as complex as anything else. Also, it is a 24/7 job.
As far as going into combat, I myself would like to commend women on their high intelligence and emotional sanity for not allowing themselves to be drafted. Good job. War, in case you haven’t noticed, is largely stupid and sad and I think staying out of it is at least as commendable as getting into it has been from time to time.
Seriously, though, if NOW and the ERA and the ACLU have their way, women will get drafted. There have been many different actions to try to include women in the draft although these movements might lack momentum since the draft has not been used since Vietnam. But it is still an active issue that has supporters and detractors all over the political spectrum, so you might get your wish. Obviously there might be some valid concerns with women’s physical appropriateness to serve in combat that might make them less desirable than males but I can’t address that here.
Of course, if one believes that to be taken seriously one must do the “tough jobs” and register for the draft, I suppose this means children, the elderly and the mentally and physically handicapped can’t be taken seriously. That’s probably a much larger percentage of the population than young men of an appropriate draft age. One does wonder how we do continue to get by.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
March 16, 2013 3:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
crap. my remarks start at "wow. where to start." the computer edited the asterisks I used to delineate D's remarks from mine.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 16, 2013 3:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
how funny and embarassing. I shouldn't write angry. My mother made or made sure we had, oh my God, hold on--- I need to double check the math--- Jesus. 147 meals a week. On a budget!
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 16, 2013 3:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh. My mother also did a lot ofthe landscaping and yard work, made sure the (many) pets were cared for, and cleaned or made sure we cleaned a house with 6 bedrooms in it. she also maintained good relationships with the neighbors and all that. Took me to Girl Scout meetings, all that.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 16, 2013 4:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know I mentioned holidays, but it is different when you really think about it: buying christmas gifts for 7 people, all teh cooking and baking, Hallowwen costumes, special decorations. And she decorated and furnished a huge house and did embroidery so we would all have homemade special things for every room in the house too.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 16, 2013 4:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You do sound like Jean Baudrillard in your arguments so keep onthinking this way. The PC feminists who would have women drafted for war hate him. And yes, as soon as the military for women becomes institutionalized what you say will happen. The draft is important because it automatically creates the resistance for war, while the volunteer army looks forward to it. Promotions you know. This is the argument that Ayn Rand and Von Mises took opposing sides on, Rand being for not forcing the individual and VM for the drat during the Viet war.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 8:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You think the only reason a college education lacks the professional capital it once had is because women infiltrated it? Come on. Women represent half of the population. That represents a huge influx of students, and everyone knows that when something becomes commonplace, Pokemon cards even, it loses value. Rarity is a thing in our society whether it has merit or not.
As for congress. Well, that is a clusterfuck and has always been a clusterfuck. When have the papers ever headlined "Congress Pretty Good, Actually." Some of our most beloved presidents of yore were derided at large in their time. I can't think of this as an example of anything except the natural cynicism of our society. Hindsight is the only place we ever award praise to our politicians, unless there's a good war on.
And the rape incident with the footballers? Why single out women in this instance? There were other boys at the party who presumably weren't on the football. Not one of them spoke out and told the raping footballers to stop. Where's their humanity? The fact is, everyone in the town has been indoctrinated into a culture of sports wins and gave these footballers a god complex. Why would the females be excluded? I think it's sexist to expect anything different.
I will agree that women do marginalize themselves. On the whole, I think women care very much about social cohesiveness over individual progress. Even when women get into catfights with other women, they're doing so to vie for more power *within their group.* They don't think outside the group, they believe in The All-Mighty Group. As a last resort, they may think of leaving the group, but that rarely ever happens. The most obvious example I can think of right now are the Real Housewives of so and so. These women hate each other but they still persevere, quite often to the point of their own self-destruction image-wise. What's the point in being famous if you end up a laughing stock? Yet they continue to sign themselves up for this show season after season. Groupthink is the Hotel California of woman-dom.
Is it any wonder that women fall prey to the pressures of society so easily? And I mean society. Women and men all working together to create a warped view of reality that everyone insists is for the good of all of us.
This makeup debate for example. We all know being attractive means more social capital. Everyone needs social capital, but women especially since we measure ourselves by the group. It doesn't matter if that woman is single or married or has the Ebola virus and has accepted the reality that she'll never be able to get laid again. Hell my grandmother at age 70 still taped her hair down and wore lipstick. It's not about sex, except in the small view. It's about being treated well by everyone.
Yes, it's sad that we do the things we do. I couldn't tell you why we've prioritized so much BS over more sensical things (i.e. things that make sense.) What I do know is that there is no trickle-down effect when it comes to the newer generations. Every time I talk to somebody 5-10 years younger than me I hear the same stupid arguments I had when I was 5-10 years younger myself. Somehow our collective knowledge and talking points have not penetrated the younger generation. I'm not saying we all have to agree, either. I'm saying that there have been many good arguments on both sides of almost any debate, but a large part of the chatter is still the half-formed, retarded dross that the rest of us heard long ago. Why aren't our kids coming to us with new ideas? They're not expounding on the foundations of what we've built, or even denouncing it as rubbish. They're reinventing the wheel over and over again.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 8:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OK Sandusky was a poor choice of example, but the thing is that a man who has sex with teenage girls is treated by the popular culture as "boys will be boys", sure the state will prosecute you, but nobody is upset about it. A girl who gets drunk and raped -- it's a crime up nobody is seeing this as EVIIIL as it would be if it was a teenage boy.
Girls are sexualized a lot differently as well. Girls clothing is designed to show off her body. There are girls clothes for girls as young as 7 that are basicly short-shorts with sexually suggestive phrases like "juicey" or "bootilicous" on them. There are reasons that women are the ones suffering the majority of eating disorders -- they're the ones wearing the tiny clothes that show off their bodies. They're the ones that see others of their gender used as sex objects on the hoods of cars or advertising in general as a come on to buy some product. Where are the "slutty clothes" for little boys? Where are the advertisements of men hanging off of a product trying to look sexy?
My point on the draft issue or any job related thing is pretty simple. You won't be respected by anyone if you're taking only the good bits of what you want. If you want to be taken seriously on the job, you have to do all of the parts of it. If you work in an industry where overnight shifts or weekends are required, you aren't going to be respected if you are the exception to the rule. I think that's the issue with the women in combat deal -- the downside of being in combat units is the possibility of being drafted. If women say "I'll take the combat pay and the promotions that come with being in combat, but if you try to draft my daughter, there will be riots in the street" no man is going to think much of that, because he knows that he has no choice -- if he joins the army, chances are fairly good that he'll be in a combat unit whether he wants to or not, and if there ever is a draft, his son is going to war. So from the man's point of view, you're taking all the good stuff (pay and promotions) while leaving the bad parts (draft and having no choice about whether to be in combat). In my industry, if you want to manage, you have to work overnights, in general to keep track of inventory. Well, I wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone if I was doing similar things -- I'll take the higher pay, but not the overnight shifts -- no they wouldn't be taken seriously.
I don't think men have a different morality, I don't know where you get that one. Men have just as much of a moral sense as any woman.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 9:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
let's give the guy a break. He has already written an impressive deal of stuff. I was happy though to at least know he is still alive thanks to the last few tweets.
Anyway I don't think it makes sense for him\her\hir\fuck you to keep writing stuff for this website on the regular. A few quality posts every now and then is ideal and I think a great deal of work already
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 2:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
College began to deteriorate during the Viet war. Professors and instructors turned their classes into social protest devoid of scholarship. Students were bribed off the streets with grants and student loans, scholarships etc to get them back into the classroom to learn to be good boys and girls. Teaching at that time if you weren't in a top tier university you were subject to student feedback (popularity voting contests) and you had no tenure, no job security so what do you think most of them did. Watered it all down and gave high marks. The community colleges, night schools, etc liked this as their enrollment increased. Students were pushed to take a full load as that is the only way to get student loans. CATCH-22 folks. Their grades had to be at a level to keep their loans, so you were "required" to give them that grade to keep them in, keep the tuition rolling in, keep the graduates churning out. So when you use women as the scapegoat for all this it is because you have not spent serious downtime with Foucault and you do not think genealogically. The entire system of education at all levels falls into the Foucauldian grid of power/knowledge/capital/normality. Education is providing cannon fodder for corporations. Normal people are unaware of their built in obsolescence. Only an artist of a particular kind is aware of their obsolescence and are defying it. Capitalism and now cyber-capitalism is irreversible, as it lies in the Order of Production. If you don't see this you are going to go down with everyone else. To write a piece about women and make up is to have fallen prey to the syndrome of the red herring.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 10:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have noticed if I put in more than one hot link my comment goes to moderation and disappears forever. I stupidly did it again today. So I think alone is not paying attention here anymore or has no mod helping with the site. Just my opinion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 10:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I replied to you but 2 hot links sent it to moderation so it is in purgatory for an indefinite amount of time. If you are going to do something, then do it right. If you are not doing it anymore say so.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 10:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's one of those lost hot links: http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2013/02/saving-mackenzie-foy-from-lolita-land.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 17, 2013 10:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's another one: http://focusfree.blogspot.com/2011/09/cloning-of-nikki-reed-all-ready-for.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 20, 2013 10:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The point is that no matter who you are, you need a community, unless you live in America where we supposedly replaced community with forums, familiar sitcom characters, and people we occasionally see at gyms and yoga classes.
Now do your part and unlock your iphone so you can go anywhere in the world and talk on it to people who matter to you. Just $17 bucks.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Iphoneunlockmn/472039909516232
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 2:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You ask people,"What was your motive for bringing Life into a world that does not sustain the Life it has?"
How would you solve this? You mentioned you may have the means but not the will. I'm interested in how you would respond to one who either had the will or desired to instill it in you.
My answer (all working shown next post):
* young girls are sprayed with religious acid, told to stop their 'sinful' competition with the leaching whores.
* girls don't need much convincing, guys cannot value honest girls - they're "sluts" - guys can only value deceit-obsessed whores who play "hard to get"; sluts are too 'easy', who would be into that?
* humans all corrupted by whore mothers to want what we cannot have, until we have it; then we won't want it because we want what we cannot have (pure insanity, and the recipe for misery). What we needed was truth, exclusively. There is no need for exclusive, Special love. That's the lie they use to make everyone exploitable.
* girls become whores who demand to be treated 'Right' (not with equality, they don't want to trade fairly - why would they, when they can just leech for life? Fair trading in their best interests? Irrefutably, but good luck telling a spoiled Toddler that).
* guys line up to spoil and treat and enable the self-defeating insanity of girls who imagine their body to be valuable as their minds rot away.
* as the clock counts down to the end of the illusory demand for whores' 'favors', the worthless product of being treated 'Right' (for no justifiable reason beyond Demand induced via deceit) is going to need a few things; thankfully, religion accommodates them. A host to leech off (a husband), some security and privacy (marriage contract to bind host to leech), a new pretext for worthless existence being sustained (children to seal the unholy joining together of needy host with needy leech).
* children are too independent, by nature; they require breaking down before they can be moulded in their mother's needy image, mothers require dependent, needy children to sell the outrageous lie that children need their mothers' lies and love - but no mother on the planet can explain why children need to love their mothers?
* Leaching mothers breeding children in need to be miserable and needy, and the cycle begins 'anew'; ably protected by the formidable and "nice"-sounding Polite Society; where any lie is fine but only the truth is ever considered "rude" enough to warrant censure.
And the acid sprays continue...
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 2:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You ask people, "What was your motive for bringing Life into a world that does not sustain the Life it has?"How would you solve this? You mentioned you may have the means but not the will. I'm interested in how you would respond to one who either had the will or desired to instill it in you.
nb. I'm not writing very well, hence the dot-points above. The extent of the horrifying leaching is starting to become apparent and it's debilitating; I'm endlessly searching for mitigation for girls but coming up with nothing but the acid - maybe that's enough to ruin a human for life, I dunno. The greedy conviction and vehemence of mothers who are determined to defend their filthy lying to men and children about sex is utterly horrifying.
Well the Answer is known to me now, so I won't be asking that question anymore. All the problems in the world could be solved by getting at the root of (largely illusory) the emotional needy. It's mothers. It's always been mothers. Their children are imprinted with their needy image.
There won't be any solution forthcoming because they don't perceive the world's misery as their problem. They create the misery intentionally, so it's hardly likely that they'll accept liability for the suffering they create with their diabolical lying. All the problems in the world could be solved as easily as everyone accepting that 50 million years of natural selection cannot be overridden by the unjustified assertions of a misery-inducing needy sociopath who went by the name of Yahweh Shibboleth ("He who musters armies"). This is how she musters armies.
This needy construct brought War to a world that had been preparing for Peace & prosperity. We've been fighting our own shadows ever since.
This is the pattern that I perceive; the cyclical repetition of misery-generating illusions of need for the purpose of leveraging the resultant pain into perceived 'advantage'.
It all starts with religious misogyny; and the (imagined) need to Control. Young girls are easy targets. They don't realise their 'slutty' desires aren't remotely shameful but merely the natural product of 50 million years of advanced genetic coding (winning DNA, naturally selected as superior). Religion comes along and says, "No, your feelings are wrong. You should be ashamed. Why can't you control your filthy whorish desires and be like other girls with dignity?"
WTF? lol. Yahweh's Intelligent Design ostensibly made them feel that way. But they're not supposed to feel that way. Religion is so transparent but then this race is a filthy collection of worthless vermin breeding misery to exploit. They have to throw some acid around, of course, to drive the point home; and the acid is needed because the feelings are deeply ingrained into young girls.
The horror of the inhumane sub-beasts is incomprehensible to me. The virtual acid is very nearly as vicious. Put yourself in the position of a 13 year old girl who sees what happens to sluts. Girls who liked sex were destroyed at my high school. It always seemed kinda insanely counter-intuitive to despise girls that put out but then these were boys raised by whore mothers who lied to them about women, sex, biology and literally everything.
What's a girl to do? Everyone wants to be a slut. No one wants the fallout.
Girls do exactly what can be expected; they struggle to get those 'shameful' desires under control. There are perceived advantages, of course. Acid is the stick, there are also carrots as far as the eye can see (and I wonder how far that eye does see, when it sees into marriage and children of their own but doesn't see the need to derive any value or capacity to contribute / produce anything of value at all). The carrots are being dangled by imbecilic johns who cannot respect girls who are sane, honest, and easily interacted with. Guys can only respect whores who lie to them about sex; if you listen to their filthy lies, you'd imagine they don't even like sex! They want meaningful sex; meaning, they're whores attempting to leverage [doing what they want to do] into being treated 'Right' [getting paid]. They don't want equality; they're greedy little emotional Toddlers as vile as any sociopath playing emotional smear games, intentionally generating suffering which they imagine suits their aims. "You know men. All they want is sex!" I wonder how intensely they believe their own lies. It's not nearly as complete a state of denial as everyone would like to believe.
The ludicrous assertion that men are only interested in sex isn't remotely true but really rather a product of whores who have nothing else to offer. When everything that comes out of a human being mouth is lies and feelings and emotional smear, sex suddenly seems like a great idea. There is no incentive to remain after their use has been utilised to capacity. It's worth bearing in mind that girls choose this. Partly influenced by the self-defeating insanity of men, it's true; but then mothers are responsible for lying to their sons.
I'm not saying it's easy for girls being sprayed with religion's acid. But they do a very, very stupid thing caught between the stick and carrots. It's unreasonable to expect them to choose (A) [doing what they want without caring about acid-throwing mothers & acid-poisoned sons], but they need to choose (B) [demand equality & fair trade] and they don't; they almost all choose (C) [choosing to be a whore who demands to be treated 'Right' before she'll do what she wants to do].
A human body has potential value for only 1-2000 guys (for a few minutes a pop) and only illusory 'value' at that (the induced desire manufactured by hoarding; it's brazen price-manipulation, and the entire marketplace is corrupted by mothers like Liriope, filthy sociopathic leeches who breed children expressly to manage their misery). A human mind has potential value for 7.2 billion. Girls choose to invest all their spare time obsessing over deceitful illusions of beauty; I honestly don't know how vile they truly are because what in the hell are they thinking? They already know they're going to have children.
They'll need to.
Girls spend their youth going on dates and getting treated for [doing what they want to do + filthy lies / emotional smear required to market the trade-off as 'fair']. Their minds aren't parked in neutral, they're going in reverse. The minds of girls rot away as they learn how to do is become more effective at emotional manipulation, lies, denial, deceit and inflicting passive-aggressive sleazy - malicious - pain. I think they're all sociopaths. Their needy horror is beyond the pale and if you try to negotiate with one or take umbrage at their attempts to frame a social exchange in a manner they can exploit, they just turn into these horrifying little Toddlers who won't even discuss a word. They know the scam they're running. They're not confused, just horribly deluded.
They know the clock is ticking because they know their limited period of time to 'catch' a needy host to latch onto will expire quickly. And they don't want to work; they just want to make babies who are obsessed with pleasing them. It's what they've become accustomed to. They're truly horrifying sociopaths. A credulous husband must be caught, the victim of his mother's lies and his own inability to accept the traumatising reality of her betrayal; that white dress goes on (such gall, I have seen girls who have had sex with hundreds of guys sell virginal purity to these doe-eyed imbeciles) and a contract to support a leech till death do the leech and host part is signed.
Then the real work begins. They have to seal the deal because humans are not meant to be monogamous. There is no sane or logical argument for marriage; it's a psychotic religious construct of misery almost suspiciously created to cater for whores and their worthless - valueless - leaching.
They need children to hold up as the pretext for a continuance of the entitled lie, that they deserve to be carried by men by virtue of their mere existence. They need children before anyone starts asking pesky questions like "Why don't you get a job?"
They can't adopt. They need their husband to have ownership (imagined or otherwise) of the property they're going to imprint with fealty to themselves. So in a world where 20,000 children under 5 die every day, mothers breed children of Their Own because they don't want to work or contribute. They literally lack the capacity because all they can do is love, lie, split their legs and reduce men with their emotional smear campaigns. This is a big problem because anyone who says "a child needs their mother" should be made to watch primates until they are rehabilitated.
DH Lawrence never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself because offspring are not made to love their mothers in the animal kingdom. It's the other way around. Children will never have use for a lying leech who retards their minds with lies (for the children's sake, of course!) and makes children dependent rather than independent. It's what love was constructed for - quite literally - to make slaves out of Your Own.
This is why mothers say demand "Please" and "thank you" for providing food? No. Their hosts provided the food. Mothers require "Please" because they are the leech and they need to manufacture an illusion of necessity. They smother their children not with care but with emotional sentiment; they need their child to need them. Children need to be protected from the needy leeches who need to lie to them to bind their minds like the feet of Chinese women were bound only a century ago. We're still deep in the Dark Ages and we won't emerge until girls stop the infernal needy lying.
The lies of mothers are responsible for every - single - problem Humanity faces. Right across the globe.
They're retarding their children because they need to. Every problem in this world could be solved if people weren't so retarded that they could only perceive the corrupted distortions of reality imagined to be real by screaming insane emotional trainwrecks. Children don't need to be unconditionally loved, they don't need to be loved at all.
Children need information, uncorrupted intelligence flow, they need to learn how to process risk v reward; make decisions with certainty when time permits & make decisions in uncertainty when appropriate; children need to learn how to create the list of viable choices to choose from, collate the information required to analyse and predict consequences in order to make the best decision possible; children need to be given ownership of their own destiny and choices, taught to wear the consequences from those choices and accept their liabilities. Children must be made to choose, it's not merely an optional right. It's a life skill and a necessity. Parents should never choose for their children because if you cannot make the case to a child why they shouldn't run across a road, then you should not be telling them not to. I know what that's all about. I know a little truth about the rule of law.
Mothers don't really do all that. They just love and lie. They want slaves; they're reduced to something so small and puny and petty, it's terrifying. Logic is the enemy of leaching mothers. Ration, reason, sense? They hate that shit. They run on feelings, emotional poison. They just assert the filthiest lies in the world without logic or justification, as truths. "Be brave", they tell their little boys without anyone saying "Whoa! What are you telling your son to be afraid of and why would you tell him to fake courage when he's frightened?"
Mothers know why they do things. They just play at being confused. I ask them why they drill their children with deceptive fantasy in preparation for reality and they put on their stupid face? They're not stupid, they're just deranged. Trauma is manufactured by lies; expressly. As in, by intent. They intend to traumatise their children because their children need to love them; and love requires terror before the need [to be exploitable] overwhelms a human mind. A child's corrupted perception of reality clashes with reality and trauma is manufactured. Throw in the realised implications of the betrayal for PTSD.
First love betrayed.
And so we beat on, pathetic hollow needy men, boats against the current of sanity, borne back ceaselessly into our betrayed and repressed formative years.
Our mothers raped us. Their lies destroyed the species. There is no remedy to their needy horror. Stop the acid spray? Drill girls with the need for Self-reliance? Advertise the truth about mothers and their needy? I'd rather just put the species down, just quietly.
If it were up to me, I would. I'd proudly face judgement from any quarter, in any afterlife. Terminating suffering that is denied by the human mind, brilliantly (if tragically)? That'd be humane. We're the most inhumane species on the planet. And lol @ yall when the non-renewable resources get drained further and further. You're all racing towards M.A.D. but trapped into Think Positive mindsets (only a leech would ever have a problem with Accurate Thinking). You're all faking happiness because Polite Society is a horrifying world of creepy where if you don't pretend everything is as it should be, something is wrong with your brain. "Are you happy? Why aren't you happy? Be happy, already; that's an order." The obsessive pressure to feign happiness so ludicrous and transparent. It's all mothers who generate this filthy antisocial deceit and shit. Polite Society: where you can say and even do any uncivil and deceitful and miserably cruel thing you like but don't you dare tell the truth.
Leeches don't like that. No they hate transparency. Be honest, they tell their children; immediately before punishing them for making that mistake. I've screamed in horror, "You're literally punishing them for being honest after you've demanded honesty. What you do think they're going to take away from this insanity?"
Mothers will be 'confused'. It's amazing really, how transparent their vile truly is. They're obsessed with what is "nice" and "polite" over what is "true" and "mean". There's your conviction. There's no logic you can use to counter that. They incriminate themselves.
As if truth could hurt anyone but the victims of lies since birth. Their leaching isn't some accident of confusion; they are willing partners with the religions spraying misogyny across the globe. I half-suspect Yahweh's needy was entirely the creation of mothers (I suspect the Bible was likely written by mothers). It's women (specifically, mothers) who spray the acid on young girls. Their perceived motives should be apparent. Men really don't have the motive for vehemence.
It's Toddlers who want to have their cake and eat it too. The Bible was written by emotional Toddlers; mothers, surely.
And emotional Toddlers begat emo Toddlers. And the need to lie and create misery rolls on and on...they literally convict themselves.
"If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all." - whore mothers, leaching off Their Own
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 3:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Girls are sexualized a lot differently as well. Girls clothing is designed to show off her body. There are girls clothes for girls as young as 7 that are basically short-shorts with sexually suggestive phrases like "juicey" or "bootilicous" on them. There are reasons that women are the ones suffering the majority of eating disorders -- they're the ones wearing the tiny clothes that show off their bodies. They're the ones that see others of their gender used as sex objects on the hoods of cars or advertising in general as a come on to buy some product. Where are the "slutty clothes" for little boys? Where are the advertisements of men hanging off of a product trying to look sexy?
Do fathers buy those clothes or is it mothers? Mothers pimp out their daughters all over the world; they're sociopaths. Some imagine they're in competition with their daughters. I've been accosted by a few cougars who tried (half successfully, what with my hands being tied) to molest their daughter's b/f. I was partially to blame.
I was a real sleazy, little creep. But it wasn't in my interests; it's just how I was raised. Humans mimic their environment. We're reduced into emotional Toddlers by that miracle of 'development'.
So from the man's point of view, you're taking all the good stuff (pay and promotions) while leaving the bad parts (draft and having no choice about whether to be in combat).
They're entitled emotional Toddlers, who want to have their cake and to eat it too. Good luck trying to talk sense and equality into them.
no they wouldn't be taken seriously.
They get raped a lot. It doesn't seem to deter them. I don't know what to make of that peculiarity yet.
I don't think men have a different morality, I don't know where you get that one. Men have just as much of a moral sense as any woman.
Morals.
To a religious creep, rape might be "wrong", "bad", "selfish", "inconsiderate", "immoral", "evil" and "illegal". Basically, "naughty".
I don't see it as any of those things and imagining your Selfish best interests to be served by rape is insane. Rape isn't "naughty" any more than urinating all over yourself is "funny". You can laugh all you like whilst you piss all over yourself but it's not funny or naughty; it's just insane.
Laws were created to distract humans from thinking in terms of their own Selfish best interests. If it weren't for laws and morals and the religious passion mothers emotionally degrade their children with, humans would simply be humane.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 4:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Part of what you said canbe better understood by reading it through Lacan.
Desire is paired with Lack. Desire/Lack are in as glued a relation as Power/Knowledge.
Desire depends completely on Lack. When Desire is satisfied then there is no more Lack. So there is no more Desire. The Japanese only display one treasured object at a time in their homes. When they adapt to it, it is removed and another placed there for contemplation. Why objects are in a store wind down where you can look, not touch. You get them home and they quickly lose interest for you. Women are commodities as are men. They are objects in the consumer culture. They have an expiration date. They will become obsolete. The true artist knows this.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 7:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I haven't figured out how to style these comments properly yet.
I have a friend. This is a girl who knows the acid all too well. For almost as long as I have known her, she has indulged in her enjoyment of sex, and she has suffered for it. Slut, her parents called her.
After a time, she did begin to want monogamy, a connection to just one man. Rebuffed by many and forced to feel shame by the words of her family, she sunk into a depression. And in her sadness she reached out to a lover from her past, one for whom her recent experiences had given her a new appreciation. A man who, incidentally, had taken her virginity, but also one who had treated her not as a princess but as an equal.
In the interest of brevity… the man was me, and we are now engaged to be married. Point is, she's seen the acid firsthand and has given up fantasies of perfect romance. She's explored her sexuality and I am fine with that, because it showed her that what I offer is ideal. Not spoiling or pampering. Just affection and the expectation that both would contribute what we could towards building a life.
My recurrent relationship with her opened my eyes to the vitriol a woman must put up with in the world, and I do not understand it. I can't begrudge her and don't see why anyone would. But now we are at an impasse. She loves children and wants to bring new life into the world.
I want to fix the world first. I love my hypothetical progeny too much to subject them to society. More than that, I love them too much to subject them to me.
I was drawn to Alone because I believed that he was right and the problem was me. And certainly it is. I have narcissistic qualities, and in spades. I was coddled as a child and I'm fully aware of the damage it has done to my psyche. My mother wanted to be my favorite person and I rejected this. I thought the nature of love was to pass it forward -- she loved me, and I in turn would honor that by loving my own family. It wasn't enough to preserve my sanity. I'm one traffic incident away from an emotional outburst and subsequent ostracizing or ejection from society. I depend on the environment for stability. Suicide is a daily consideration. I have given up any hope of adjusting, and in the morning I usually have to make a serious decision as to whether I want to put forth the effort of continuing.
"Go out and do a good deed," the psychiatrists say. "You'll feel better about yourself. If you're in pain, give your life to those who would appreciate it."
What?
Why?
I'm in what they call a healing profession. But more and more I see that my efforts are largely absorbed and consumed into the overall atmosphere of pain, like ripples that eventually vanish. Healing is never permanent. Healing someone's mind does not protect them from the next damaging incident. If I help you walk again that won't save you if your back gets broken again.
What I'm getting at here is that I don't see what I can offer my progeny that won't be overwhelmed by the environment of pain, fear, and lies. I do not see how I can protect or heal them against society's constant demand for production and performance. If you're sick or injured, suck it up and go to work or we will find someone who happens to not have been sick or injured. I can do nothing against this. So can I really be the entire problem?
So despite immersing myself in the writings of far superior intellects such as Alone and others like him, I have failed to convince myself that I am the problem. I am not -- and can never hope to be -- the only influence in my children's lives, and, whether I am mentally healthy or insane, upstanding or cowardly, narcissistic or philanthropic, it doesn't matter. They will be damaged, stomped upon, doused in acid, and ultimately used up and thrown away, just as my fiancee has been by others in between my appearances in her life.
I would disagree with you in that I find one overarching, permeating mentality that governs humanity's treatment of one another all over the world, and it is this.
THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE.
Ill or injured? Go away, we will hire someone else.
How many guys did you fuck, again? Ugh, I'll go find a virgin, you have no value.
So you molested that child, big deal. Psychologically scarred? Pfft. It's only one life. There are lots more where that came from.
Woman committed a sexual impropriety (read: was raped)? Kill her.
THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE.
Humans are expendable and I think that is because THERE ARE TOO MANY OF US.
The very first line of Alone's that caught my eye:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps_part_2.html
"Society is nothing more than individual psychology multiplied by too many to count."
Here's where you and I converge, I think, but it's why I reached out to you.
You said:
"I'd rather just put the species down, just quietly."
There's no solution, no compromise, no "working towards harmony." There is no harmony in a world of narcissists. Even a mad few will spoil it for the rest. The damage I have done to my community and family, I can never make reparations for. It is too extensive. There is only the option of reducing the sheer number of people on the planet, for the purpose of forcing the rest to appreciate what is left.
"If it were up to me, I would."
Even though it's not up to me, I still would. Power is not to be handed out, as Alone describes in this very post. It is to be seized.
But I am not God nor can I seize godhood. I'm just an impotent narcissist too cowardly to bring life into the world. So I'll go to work, love my wife, get my paycheck, see my shrink, take my pills, and hope I never get into that car wreck. I'm resigned to it.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 7:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Argh, 500 errors. Previous comment was meant as a reply to jonny's.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 8:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
the problem is, human beings are being treated as if/are too expendable. the solution is, treat them as if they are expendable by killing them. then there will be less people and those who are left will matter more.
you're right, you probably should not have children.
the tendency of seeing some bygone time, or situation, or anything outside of what is being experienced here and now I have always kind of associated with narcissism, myself. "I would be different if only things were different" etc. Just that tendency to imagine what amounts to a womb, and to want to crawl back into it. Distinguishing between experiencing that on some levels as nuturing and healthy versus pathological can occupy a person for some time. If nothing else, it keeps the focus ononeself and also keeps the focus on what can be felt. Might be worth a shot.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 9:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"There won't be a new field of power after that."
Of course there will be: flint knapping, spear lashing, leather tanning, etc.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 10:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't post a 'comment'. No links at all. Never seen that before.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 10:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Cannot post. Maybe I've been word limited. Seems fair.
After a time, she did begin to want monogamy, a connection to just one man.My recurrent relationship with her opened my eyes to the vitriol a woman must put up with in the world, and I do not understand it.
She loves children and wants to bring new life into the world.
Um...that's a pretty glaring contradiction right there no? How miserable can it be if she wants to bring children into it, or does the need for children override the considerations of misery? Have you pursued this line of investigation? It's not readily apparent how she rationalises her desire to bring new life into a world she's experienced the misery of, first-hand.
My personal opinion is that bringing a child into this world might constitute a Crime Against Humanity. I cannot fathom doing it. Do you raise your child to be humane and live a life of endless reverse freerolls dealing with vermin? Or do you raise your child to be one of the vermin? I wouldn't even know how to prepare a child to cope with the dark realities everyone is in denial about; a surreal reality so dark that 20,000 children under the age of 5 can be murdered by our needy every single day without anyone giving a rats but a 12 year old girl choosing for herself makes caring creeps across the globe suddenly take an interest in expressing their audible feelings about how wrong it is - it's so wrong! it's just not Right! - she's too young to have a will of her own.
Uh huh. So compassionate, aren't they; the little creepy sociopaths. They truly care about her welfare. No, I can tell.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 10:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are exactly correct. It's all in Foucault's lifetime of work. The power/knowledge grid. And we are all getting ground down in it. It is not an individual problem, it is a mass problem. And yes we are all expendable because we are designed for obsolescence in this system. As son as you fully understand this, the outrage will stop because you will know you are right, so then you can decide what you want to do with this new power/knowledge grid you are in. It has us all by the throat. Take a good look.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 10:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So why can't people adopt? Why does it have to be their DNA. There are millions of children out there who need someone to care for them.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 11:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think she sees it as clearly as I do. She's been hurt, yes, but is pretty contented. I suppose I have a lot of "righteous rage" on her behalf. As you've undoubtedly guessed, we are younger and more naive than yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 11:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not wanting children because the world is evil was a belief that Catharism had. There were believers and there were adepts. This is the theme of Lars Von Triers movie Melancholy. It is not a new idea.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 21, 2013 11:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, I recall your pointing me to Catharism before. I just now spoke with my fiancee about it. She seems to think having a child is another chance to create someone that'll "fight for the good side." I understand her sentiment but I look at the overwhelming surrounding selfishness and I despair. Thanks seymourblogger.
Anonymous at 8:41 -- Of course my line of thinking is flawed. Who's got it right? Ah well. Someday, nature or the universe will bring us something far beyond our ability to control, it will decide for us that we've ALL got it wrong, and we will cease to exist for our smugness.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 12:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your line of thinking isn't flawed. It is accurate. The question now is what to do about what you know is accurate. It is not a matter of fighting for the good side. It is a matter of thinking correctly and clearly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 3:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You remind me of the guy I lost my virginity to freshman year of college. The concept of the false self causing others to react, and serving as a horrible funhouse mirror to the weaknesses of your personality caused me to reflect on my time at college. I actually recall writing about socializing, and lamenting that others saw a twisted version of me, a "black carnival mirror."
In reality, I had been so twisted and beaten down by childhood abuse that I had no sense of self at all. When meeting people, I would all but ask, "What would you like me to be today? I'll be that times fifty!" I never kept friends for long, and seemed to continuously attract the same kinds of lovers, in both straight and lesbian relationships, over and over again: cheaters, users, and abusers (until I met my husband).
Work, too, was like this: the harder I worked, the farther down the ladder I got kicked. I've noticed that whenever bosses notice I'm a high performer, it signals to them that they should reward me not with salary or even praise, but more work, with less time in which to do it. I lost a high-paying senior management job about 18 months ago because my past and my psychiatric issues mean I use healthcare frequently, and the company found out and showed me the door. They didn't want the cost of their premiums going up. My new job pays terribly, and an interesting thing happens when I ask for more money the way men just know how to do: I lose even more status in the eyes of those with power.
My boss questions me, and suddenly finds a way to downplay the accomplishments that seemed superhuman mere days ago. The headhunters who enthusiastically wanted to hook me up with a $100K job (which is on the low end of what I should be earning, in my 30s, as a senior manager in a high-COL metro area working in a high-demand, high-tech field) suddenly find that all they have for me are 35K jobs that'd normally go to 21-year-olds, and talk to me like a father might berate a spoiled child, about how I'd best be grateful for those crumbs.
While TLP sometimes offers armchair analysis by missing the larger cultural and social structures that keep people in place (see: why women can't just say "fuck you, I want it, I'll take it"), s/he other times has interesting points, and I have often thought that most people are incredibly self-absorbed. My past, my poor self-esteem and lousy boundaries, and above all, my intolerance of self-promoting conversations and agendas leave me socializing exclusively with my husband, and the solitude further lessens my inclination to bother "fitting in" with the Matrix or playing the "Game."
Except I will have to – TLP wrote an article about the urban poor going to fast-food style psych clinics and getting SSI, and that's where I'm headed. An empty life, yes, but I am hardly unique. We have a culture full of mostly blathering narcissists, and a sizable minority of damaged people, and the pressure in here is insane. When will it all explode, I wonder?
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 5:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The author missed my theory. I think women wear makeup to make other women think they are attractive to men, thus ranking themselves higher with other women. Men don't see makeup changes or hair changes very often, but women notice it right away in other women.
It's all evolution. Women spent most of their time with each other while the men were out hunting, its all about them. Women can easily find other men, but acceptance by their social group is very difficult.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 10:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In reality, I had been so twisted and beaten down by childhood abuse that I had no sense of self at all. When meeting people, I would all but ask, "What would you like me to be today? I'll be that times fifty!"
Yeah it took me a long time to understand their freaking problem. I was being who they wanted me to be after I'd tried being who they said they wanted (people don't know what they want, you have to tell them), but..."I never kept friends for long, and seemed to continuously attract the same kinds of lovers...over and over again: cheaters, users, and abusers..."
I'd meet girls who were different and I'd find ways to get dumped because I really only felt I deserved broken girls. I broke some girls doing that. They didn't really understand, but who ever could (unless you've been broken).
I've noticed that whenever bosses notice I'm a high performer, it signals to them that they should reward me not with salary or even praise, but more work, with less time in which to do it.
You know this could be just human reducing games going on, right? You cannot underestimate the snivelling of this tiny species of coy creepy vermin; this is a species that purges itself routinely, cuts down tall poppies (to bring them back down to size, pretty low with all the endless cutting and judging going on), takes out threats before the threats even realise they're a threat and everyone is like a traitor to everything (sports team, place of employ, social club; everyone perceives everything limited to their - exclusive - limited short-term interests). To rise up the ranks in anything is incredibly hard because if you're a genuine threat, you'll be recognised and snuffed.
Or another example is when I 'conscientiously' objected to invading Iraq and resigned my Commission, I had no money & I needed a job desperately. I was going for every job from decent to menial and just getting denied. I went to 80 job interviews where I almost went insane because I would beg them to tell me what I did wrong for the next one but they'd all get embarrassed and awkward and flatly refuse and my mind went into crazy places trying to figure out what was wrong with me. I rewrote my CV / resume better and better, dressed smarter and smarter, tried harder and harder but I was literally just unemployable. No one - not one - would give me the reason. I almost lost the plot, my friends all shrugged disinterested; it wasn't their life. No one had answers and I was starving and looking at drastic options when a moment of clarity inspired by my little sister made me wonder if maybe...
I raced home, ripped everything impressive out of (impossibly, implausibly) impressive CV, wrote intentional spelling mistakes and shitty grammar into my resume and next couple interviews I just wore like sneakers and jeans.
Hired.
Hired.
Two in a row.
I was no longer a perceived threat to the junior / middle level management failboat doing the interviewing. I was no longer overqualified.
While TLP sometimes offers armchair analysis by missing the larger cultural and social structures that keep people in place (see: why women can't just say "fuck you, I want it, I'll take it")
I disagree. I believe Alone has honed in on exactly the problem keeping women in their (chosen) place.
We have a culture full of mostly blathering narcissists, and a sizable minority of damaged people, and the pressure in here is insane. When will it all explode, I wonder?
It's a pressure cooker on the edge. It's about to blow. People are on the brink. It'll explode soon and when it does, it's going to be really ugly.
This is a really ugly species we have here. Capable of atrocities like no one can imagine. It almost doesn't bear thinking about.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 1:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The name of the game is normal. Now it starts in the womb with invasion there. Over dressed signals not normal. It's all detailed in Foucault and it came out of the Great Confinement in Europe over 300 years ago which lasted 150 years. (Lectures in Abnormal College de France 1974-75) Read Foucault or keep reinventing the wheel.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 2:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
("I disagree. I believe Alone has honed in on exactly the problem keeping women in their (chosen) place.")
I disagree. It's not about keeping women in their place, it's about keeping everyone in their place. And when alone gets everyone riled up about make up or not, the big picture cannot be seen. Make up and how much or how little, colors, eyes or not changes with fashion. It signals how slose you are following fashion and what image fashion is promoting that you want to project. How well you play the game or not as it may be.
This is why Kristen Stewart gets dissed by the media. She refuses to play at all. BUT she is worth 80 million dollars, has a devoted boy friend who is the heart throb of women all over the world, dresses like she threw dirty clothes on from what was lying nearest on the floor, doesn't comb her hair, has a fabulous career, is a sought after celebrity, has been chosen by Givenchy to launch their newest fragrance, will be in a new movie, AND SHE DOESN'T PLAY THE FUGGIN GAME! This is a FOUCAULDIAN CUT into the Dominating Discourse of what you are all talking about. If she can have it all and say fug you, then what do they have to sell to the rest of you to make money from your consumption? This is the danger of the CUT into the Dominating Discourse. It changes it all. Have you noticed Kristen Stewart look alikes while walking around your local area. Girls with no make up? Not caring what they are wearing? etc.
Stewart wears stillettos on the red carpet and changes to Keds for the parties along with some comfortable clothes. She uses her red carpet clothes as "floating signifiers" to say something and sheds the glamorous gowns for the party afterwards. SHE IS SAYING ALL THIS IS JUST FOR SHOW! It isn't real. They hate her for it and can't get her so they photoshop pictures of her "cheating" with her director on her bf and start a scandal because they can't catch her doing anything without integrity.
Are you supporting her? She is taking the heat for all of us. Or are you criticizing her for being just a regular, nondescript looking young woman?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 2:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's not about keeping women in their place, it's about keeping everyone in their place.
Bingo. I had a paragraph typed up, but why waste words? My individual experience is nice to share, but really, all it would illustrate is a reinforcement of the larger point: we are all being kept in our place, some by different mechanisms than others, but certainly by forces larger than us.
Johnny posted:
You know this could be just human reducing games going on, right? You cannot underestimate the snivelling of this tiny species of coy creepy vermin; this is a species that purges itself routinely, cuts down tall poppies (to bring them back down to size (...) To rise up the ranks in anything is incredibly hard because if you're a genuine threat, you'll be recognised and snuffed.
This is something we go back and forth on in my family because yes, I'd like to take blame where blame's due, and fix whatever it is about myself that can prevent these outcomes next time, but what if the results I'm getting are generated by forces larger than any of us.
To wit:
I had no money & I needed a job desperately. I was going for every job from decent to menial and just getting denied. I went to 80 job interviews where I almost went insane because I would beg them to tell me what I did wrong for the next one but they'd all get embarrassed and awkward and flatly refuse and my mind went into crazy places trying to figure out what was wrong with me. I rewrote my CV / resume better and better, dressed smarter and smarter, tried harder and harder but I was literally just unemployable.
My experience while job-searching for the first eight months of 2012 exactly. To a fucking tee.
I raced home, ripped everything impressive out of (impossibly, implausibly) impressive CV, wrote intentional spelling mistakes and shitty grammar into my resume and next couple interviews I just wore like sneakers and jeans.
Hired.Hired.
Two in a row.
I was no longer a perceived threat to the junior / middle level management failboat doing the interviewing. I was no longer overqualified.
Frightening. But I think you're on to something here. Because I am that middle-management failboat – not failing in deed, efficiency, managerial capability, or quality of output, failboat because I'm paid shit – and I'm bringing in employees with garbage resumes and cover letters for interviews. Why? Because my boss said so. And my boss doesn't seem particularly interested in the candidates I spoke with who actually did go above and beyond, who actually could make us insanely profitable in short order. So I'm a failboat for that, too.
The only addendum I'd make is to consider that forces larger than middle management are making these decisions. Think VPs, execs, department heads, and (shudder) "personnel management," aka hiring-and-firing jockeys, aka Human Resources. They have a massive vested interest in keeping the mediocrity at an even keel.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 4:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First if you start reading Foucault you will find a huge intellectual community out there working on this. For one example The European University gives open seminars and degree programs at the graduate level for all sorts of windows to go through. It begins with Foucault's Grid of power/knowledge, the relation of power/knowledge that can NOT be separated, that are always in relation. And in this comes the knowing that power is not a separate entity that exists by itself, as it is always coupled with knowledge. And power seeps through the interstices of the grid in things like make up, CV's, clothes, interviews, management, and begins now in the womb when they stick an instrument in there to record "if you are normal." And then imagine the dominance of authority that is going to come down on the woman who is nurturing an abnormal child. All the terrible things she is going to have to face and go through if she doesn't abort. Believe me they are going to do this to her. (I am not taking a position either way on this BTW.) I am taking a position of the power perceived by her when the doctor tells her all this. THIS IS THE GRID we are all in. power/knowledge/capital/normality and it ratcheted into this net coming out of the Great Confinement of Europe as Capitalism was growing in momentum and needed labor and soon after consumers. This is how "normality" came FROM madness, impoverishment, indigence, illness, not that all these were abnormal. UNTIL this time there was no normal and now normal has been inverted to be the foundation we aspire to and any deviance from is the abnormal. And you can't get to this understanding without understanding Foucault. And Foucault couldn't get to it without doing genealogies he culled from dirty, ragged, hardly legible archives following Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. Once you study Foucault he is irrefutable.If you try to explain Foucault to a novice or to someone who hasn't gotten to the point where you are, you are throwing pearls before swine as they still think they can fix it. The point is it cannot be fixed. You can apply resistance to that point in the interstice where you have a chance to win. Guerilla law is a great method to work with. Or as Baudrillard suggests you implode it. This is what I did this summer flying by the seat of my pants and took on all the tabloids over their lying smearing of Kristen Stewart. Eric Packer in Don DeLillo's Cosmopolis does this with cyber-capitalism. Once you understand you will see signs from the future as Zizek says. Ai WeiWei the Chinese dissident conceptual artist holds off THE ENTIRE FUGGIN TOTATLITARIAN CHINESE GOVT WITH TWITTER. They put surveillance cameras all over his home and studio to watch him.He puts one of his own in his bedroom. They beg him to remove it. Twitter is the only thing that controls world opinion for him as the Chinese never want to LOSE FACE about how very modern they are.Twitter keeps him alive. Ai WeiWei judos them, uses zen on them, (Asian) and is following Nietzsche by taking it to excess. Excess will implode it. The word fug - the real word - is used for everything now. It is a verb, a noun, an adjective, whatever so now it means nothing. That's how you destroy something. They want a resume, give them a book. Russell Stauffer used to give a recommendation letter saying, "X is a good person to have with you." If time speeds up, go very very slow. Stop wasting your time here with preaching to the choir. There are things to do and we need you.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 10:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The name of the game is normal. Now it starts in the womb with invasion there. Over dressed signals not normal. It's all detailed in Foucault and it came out of the Great Confinement in Europe over 300 years ago which lasted 150 years. (Lectures in Abnormal College de France 1974-75) Read Foucault or keep reinventing the wheel.
In the context of my example, professional deportment and bearing signalled a threat. I wasn't being turned down for not being normal but for bringing an artillery division to a pistol shootout. But I've been meaning to pay you some emotional Currency for shoving Foucault down my throat. I may have heard of him in passing but hadn't read anything he'd written or said until this thread. He's a freaking genius. He knows everything.
In that long debate between him and Chomsky (half-ruined by that buffoon Elders), the only place I can see where he's logically sub-correct is in his (very insightful) identification of the mental illness that produced a fear of mental illness. The mentally ill (normal people) have been reduced so low by lies and love, they're been made to be so terrified of what is different (to the point of blanket assumption that anyone who cannot [or refuses to] communicate with them at their reduced capacity must be mentally ill). There is no clearer sign of mental illness than [wanting to be normal] and this would be true even if to be normal was to be sane. It's an issue of motive and mothers will shamelessly drill shame into their kids as a form of behaviour modification / manipulation, making them feel there's something wrong with them if they aren't normal [doing what their mother wants them to do]. The mentally ill invented their own terror and now seek it out to stomp it down in fear of the Unknown.
That's all brilliant and everything but Chomsky took it one step further and defined mental illness as the unwillingness to produce or contribute anything of value to Society. Bingo. That's the only definition of mental illness I've ever heard that is worth getting emotional about. Leeches who don't want to pay their own way but don't want to leave the game; they just want a free ride.
Like nearly every girl I've ever met (and most guys, but only the girls can get away with it courtesy of the vile lies they tell credulous guys who've been set up by their whore mothers' lies). The girls have all been sprayed with acid, but it's more than that. It's an ingrained sense of entitlement and an indolence which might be the product of a sweeter 'acid' I suppose, sprayed at toddler girls by fathers who say idiotic lies imagining (quite genuinely, because emotion makes you insane; and dangerously, because their daughters don't realise that) their daughter to be "the prettiest girl in the world" or telling her that they'll "never let anything happen to her" (so they have to kill her before they die? uh oh, insanity recursion). I know these are stupid lies but the insane father doesn't know he's batshit crazy and so the toddler is corrupted.
Toddlers really struggle to make the distinction between insane lies (emotional lies that are as true as they are felt by the sociopaths feeling them, like love) and 'sane' lies (for their sake, to Protect them! of course) and what is actually true. Toddlers are just so stupid like that; until they're not (at which point, I think they become narcissists). When they're forced (often with violence) to consider the insane feelings of the emotionally deranged (needy "elders" and so forth), they're turned into baby sociopaths; unfailingly deceitful (i.e. well-behaved).
Mothers and priests built this world of horror. They're not especially bright, they merely lie first. Their leaching has never been sustainable, but they've never been concerned with such trivialities. They just don't want to contribute or produce anything of value.
I disagree. It's not about keeping women in their place, it's about keeping everyone in their place.
Keeping women in their place keeps everyone in their place in ways that keeping men in their place does not. The children of emotionally degraded mothers will be emotionally degraded. Fathers are less important; which is why 91% of custody disputes result in the mother being awarded the child by Power.
"Children need their mother."
- leaching mothers.
And when alone gets everyone riled up about make up or not, the big picture cannot be seen.
The common theme of Alone's writing appears to be (as far as I can perceive) that women are driving misogyny. If I am correct, he's absolutely correct. But I never realised that until he wrote about Hunger Games.
Have you noticed Kristen Stewart look alikes while walking around your local area. Girls with no make up? Not caring what they are wearing? etc.
No, but I agree with you that she's very important. There's just one logical problem with this; if she was as important as you imagine, they would negate her in a more conclusive manner. They have the power to do anything they like because people are so stupid and cowardly and 'self'-involved (my argument is they're just self-defeating, but then it's an issue of perception), it's just implausible. A single street cop can put anyone in prison under the right circumstances. The laws have been written to allow for this. Drug possession. Who possessed it? You v the cop. Good luck.
Or they could just have someone take her out, like they took out River Phoenix. He was murdered because the combination of drugs that killed him were suicidal to combine. He wasn't suicidal. Johnny Depp sold the Viper Room, left the country, went and lived alone in a French castle and didn't emerge for a decade I believe. No family member ever speaks to the media about it. No one talks about that murky shit.
If Kristen Stewart was as powerful a CUT as we'd like to believe, they would act. JFK was murdered by His Own and the cattle accepted a 50 year secrecy seal on the cover up (it's unfathomable, really).
A better example of Foucault's CUT (invariably cut out) was Eddie Murphy. He was the funniest stand-up comedian in the world with a global following which made him incredibly powerful; and he was using his power to get people to laugh at their own Self-defeating insanity. But something frightened him into making Eddie Murphy movies instead. Norbit is not a powerful film.
Bradley Manning. The cattle know that whistle-blowing is a crime. The Devil blows the whistle on God; it might be the Devil's only(?) 'crime' in the Bible; and he's associated with "bad" and "evil" in the minds of billions of batshit insane normal people.
They forced Amazon to tear up the First Amendment and the cattle just ignored it to continue fighting over immigration and whether a nation that can spends US$700 billion / annum on a leaching military can afford tens of billions to spend on health care to take care of Its Own.
We'll know if I'm wrong about Kristen Stewart when she's murdered or incapacitated; gets thrown into the slammer or terrified into retirement or conformity. Until then, whilst she's obviously a threat to the status quo, you cannot logically presume her to be a serious Cut. Does Foucault assert there has ever been a successful Cut in the discourse?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 11:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anon: The only addendum I'd make is to consider that forces larger than middle management are making these decisions.
Well yes, from the top down we're going in reverse and that's been happening for 5000 years of illusory 'progress'. IQs can soar and logically, that will only make destruction more efficient until EQs emerge from the insane recursion that is [lying to Your Own]. This should really go without saying but then everything is worth saying over and over until it no longer needs to be said.
But to gain power (the application of which is inhumane & a Crime Against Humanity; if you have to use might to persuade you're as violent a criminal as mothers), you have to take out your betters. That's what purging is all about. You don't rise to the top of anything by competing on merit, this isn't that kind of a world.
It's all back-stabbing and nepotism and corruption (like the invention of sovereigns ordained by God [and by their capacity to imprint / terrify more vassals than anyone else into dying for them] with the divine right to rule over slaves; God is huge on heritage, He invented it), but it's funny that nepotism can be considered inefficient and undesirable but hereditary title is fine. The contradictions of this insane world are mind-numbing.
My mind was numbed pretty good on 12/09/01 by nonchalantly noting that OBL couldn't have been happier with the 'news' reporting on 9/11 than if he had supreme & total control over every media organisation on the planet. At which point, the implications froze my terrified mind numb.
A couple weeks later, I'd fallen in love for the first time. I was 19. I think this pattern happens to most people around the age of 3 or 4.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 12:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's the only definition of mental illness I've ever heard that is worth getting emotional about. Leeches who don't want to pay their own way but don't want to leave the game; they just want a free ride.
OK, I'm starting to understand.
I was fucking a woman once, who had a friend. In those days I and my ilk would have called this friend "the inevitable fat friend." Devout "Lutheran," virgin, but turned that into a virtue and said she was "saving herself for marriage" rather than confront the obvious fact that no one wanted to touch her because she was unhygienic, unattractive, and probably mentally ill. She looked down her nose at my fuck-buddy for "living in sin" (she liked sex and we were not exclusive at the time).
What's the heuristic for this? "Virtue out of necessity?"
Anyway I found out that this Lutheran had plans to "marry rich" because she doesn't ever want to work. I almost met her mother once but passed on the, uh, opportunity.
I've only seen an example of this once but I think I'm starting to understand some of Jonny's plight, if this is how the majority of women he meets in his life operate. Just the one was quite enough for me.
Just for the curious, this Lutheran ended up meeting a fellow virgin who found it appropriate to attempt to woo her with a song he wrote just for her, the day after meeting her. I was disgusted when I found out about this -- he had to go and reinforce her notion that she was intrinsically worth having. Thankfully he realized very quickly that outer ugliness does not always conceal inner beauty.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 4:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OWS was/is a powerful movement and statement. No it's not perfect, but it was a cut in the paradigm of usual protests in that it DID NOT HAVE AN AGENDA, except that it was a protest of the 99% against the 1%. You see this in The Dark Knight Rises when a protest assumes an agenda that is worse. Pirsig went over this in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
As Vija Kinski says in Cosmopolis - quoting Foucault - that the protest strengthens the system, the system requires it, creates it, promotes it to define itself which is why they never change anything. OWS has learned this lesson and they did not do it and were severely criticized by those in the Dominating Discourse of opposition that they had no agenda, no goals to demand or insist upon. Someone knew their Foucault. You cannot protest to power to change things as those "up there" do not have any power. You must apply resistance to the interstices of the Grid, the Matrix, at the level you understand and local is excellent. It works.
OWS was about networking, listening to the great people who came to speak to them: Butler; Zizek etc and to brainstorm on separate agendas. Now there are many local and imaginative OWS's all over the world doing things, taking charge such as Occupy Sandy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 4:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's all brilliant and everything but Chomsky took it one step further and defined mental illness as the unwillingness to produce or contribute anything of value to Society. Bingo. That's the only definition of mental illness I've ever heard that is worth getting emotional about.
Interesting because this is a debate early on for Foucault but I got confused as Elders puts in information to indicate a later period in Foucault's career. Foucault must have changed at that moment (Chomsky cut into Foucault's thinking? ) because from about then on Foucault defined madness as an "absence of work" and throughout all this he had the great Artaud in mind whose work was simply genius level and who had been forcibly confined for 10 years. If you read Anais Nin's diaries she is very close to Artaud in the pre war years when they both saw the analyst Rene Allende and Artaud took her to the Saltpierre for their weekly, monthly, whatever clinical presentations to professionals but evidently they were open. A schizophrenic patient was brought in the the professionals analyzed the schizophrenic's communications in terms of pathology. Artaud treated Nin to his own interpretation of the gestures and words of the patient and what the patient was communicating symbolically. This part of Nin's Diary for those years is riveting. And very classic Freud, Which we see in Breuer's case of Anna O, the woman who invented psychoanalysis by telling Breuer to keep quiet and just listen to her. Of course Artaud's WORK was amazing and it seems from then on Foucault used this definition of madness. I hadn't realized it came out of the Chomsky debates. This is the only debate I know of in which Foucault participated. He was often interviewed with others on topics, but never a one on one debate again that I know of. He avoided oppositional Discourse completely. Glad you picked that up for me. As Foucault said, "Do not ask me to stay the same."
Stewart just kicked a hole in the wall and they are all pushing through it now. She is important because of the Twilight cut back into Courtly Love and her persona, her simulacrum is what is important. They did try to ruin her relationship with her bf but it didn't work. After you wade through Foucault's life work, and it was tedious and unbelievably focused. He never expected to get a serious appointment as he was so far out of the mainstream. But he was relentless in his scholarship. Both he and Baudrillard failed their important exams and had to repeat them a year later. Both hated the academic straight jacket France holds on students and graduate appointments. Foucault could not ever get in the Sorbonne. But he was elected by his peers to the College de France, the superior intellectual institution in France. A life appointment that required him only to give one semester of weekly 3 hour lectures a year on his present research. No registered students, open attendance, no degrees, nada. His lectures were transcribed by students and now have been published and they are a joy to read as they were written by Foucault in notes often rather than fiished papers, to be heard rather than read, so their style is less dense. His prose has been criticized for being too elegant. He was fought bitterly as all the human sciences entrenched in academia were in the Dominating Discourse of oppositional ping-pong. The post modern way of thinking is to "read" a text through another. Foucault read through Nietzsche's genealogy a great deal. He thought genealogically, a powerful way of thinking.Foucault simply changed my life completely because he taught me a different way of thinking that I am still working on. The POMO way of dealing with violent opposition is to fold the opposites in on one another (as you have done with church and state) to see what the secret meaning is that is being obscured by the you/me; right/wrong, etc debate. How insightful for you to pick up the moment with Chomsky when Foucault sees and changes the way he thinks about madness to simplify it psychologically, and to emphasize the Grid that constricts all of us into normality from the womb on. Yes we can have arguments about make u or lack of make up, what it means, enter the psychological swamp of interpretation but the Discourse has captured us at this point. We are debating inside their turf and they win. "There is no outside."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 5:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But to gain power (the application of which is inhumane & a Crime Against Humanity; if you have to use might to persuade you're as violent a criminal as mothers), you have to take out your betters. That's what purging is all about. You don't rise to the top of anything by competing on merit, this isn't that kind of a world.
Your error in thinking here is that power is something someone can have. As Foucault proves beyond all your arguments with him, anticipating every one of them, power is not something you have, give, take, trade, etc. Power is in an inseparable realtion with knowledge. It is always power/knowledge glued together.
To escape this in Jean Baudrillard's Forget Foucault power/knowledge is in the Order of Production. But there is another powerful Order, the Symbolic Order of Seduction, challenge, reversibility, risk, living, Death, revenge, the order of the gift and the counter-gift.
Also following Nietzsche Baudrillard out Nietzsche's Foucault by agreeing and supporting every hypothesis Foucault ever had making him far more radical than he ever dreamed of being.(And just this minute I got that piece of the puzzle I have been lacking for 3 years now so I owe bou big time.)
To destroy something in the Order of Production, where you cannot oppose it unless you be absorbed by it, it must be carried to excess by those who wish to destroy it. This is Zizek. This is what DeLillo has his character Eric Packer do in his Cosmopolis (Cronenberg dodged the bullet). Eric Packer PACKERS in cyber-capital by trashing his multi billion dollar hedge fund taking all his investors with him. Packer is following Jesus in his turning over the tables of the money changers in their temple of finance, the Sacred Temple in the Symbolic Order. So we see the historical and revolutionary Jesus understanding the two orders and demanding that they be understood as separate. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's." This is Nietzsche and Nietzsche through Baudrillard. Zizek takes it through Hegel as he hates Nietzsche. In Matthew Jesus brings a sword to divide child from parent; husband from wife; friends from friends, etc. Not a sword of turn the other cheek and peace. But that Jesus must be a concealed secret masked by humility, love, and servitude.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 5:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sue Monk Kidd talks about security being one of the grave dangers to change.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 5:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My mind was numbed pretty good on 12/09/01 by nonchalantly noting that OBL couldn't have been happier with the 'news' reporting on 9/11 than if he had supreme & total control over every media organisation on the planet. At which point, the implications froze my terrified mind numb.
In Baudrillard's The Spirit of Terrorism he is writing about 9-11. Semiotext(e) has put out a series of phamplet books on 9-11 by various continental philosophers. Zizek's is called The Desert of the Real.
9-11 was a Debordian "SPECTACLE' turned into such by the media. The media was the EVENT not the real event. This hides all the dirty little secrets. The SPECTACLE is the event.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 5:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've only seen an example of this once but I think I'm starting to understand some of Jonny's plight, if this is how the majority of women he meets in his life operate. Just the one was quite enough for me.
You've only seen the one girl obsessed with makeup? Every girl I meet is investing in body > mind. Their minds are just written off, unserviceable. You can't talk sense into them, or even hold an intelligent conversation with them because everything they say is a transparent lie (or it is when they're lying to me, but then I don't make small talk; I hone in on reticence, instinctively). If it's something you don't want to talk about, I'm suddenly interested.
nb. Small talk is, of course, imbecilic and insulting lies.
These girls aren't virtuous; I can sleep with them as easily as not offending them. I actually think Tucker Max is lying, not about getting the girls into bed but about how he gets them into bed. Almost certainly, he just does what I did (trigger interest, then slam the door shut; lock them out and they scream to be validated - they'll prove they are worth my time but when I was doing that, they were the cutest girl in the vicinity). They're just delusional. They all want someone to take care of them but they're going to end up as single mothers or working shitty jobs or working as strippers or hookers because they're all chasing a dream of leaching. There's no other reason to sacrifice your mind in pursuit of (temporary) illusions of beauty (generated by cosmetic deceit).
When the looks start to fade, they tend to find themselves back with a former partner. And they'll be gung-ho about having children. It's a tough spot; I do empathise with the position they find themselves in but if you see how vile and cruel they are to "nice" guys when they're exploiting the corrupted market of excessive Demand...they don't really inspire much sympathy. I've seen first-hand what they do to "nice" guys. I was in love once or twice. I've been that guy a few times.
I've been "friend-zoned".
There is no girl obsessed with her appearance that isn't an example of what I'm talking about. You've met a lot more than one girl who wants a free ride (but only after she's had some fun).
Every girl you've met pays her own way? That's remarkable. The only ones I've ever met that reach for their wallet early in an acquaintance are simply playing a more advanced game. The game is one of impressions. And it's all illusions because the impressions are riddled with deceit.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 5:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Seymourblogger: OWS was/is a powerful movement and statement.OWS has learned this lesson and they did not do it and were severely criticized by those in the Dominating Discourse of opposition that they had no agenda, no goals to demand or insist upon.
You cannot protest to power to change things as those "up there" do not have any power. You must apply resistance to the interstices of the Grid, the Matrix, at the level you understand and local is excellent. It works.
OWS was about networking, listening to the great people who came to speak to them: Butler; Zizek etc and to brainstorm on separate agendas. Now there are many local and imaginative OWS's all over the world doing things, taking charge such as Occupy Sandy.
That's why only Alone is writing intelligently.
It's all in vain until mothers stop breeding children to suffer to please (others in lieu of Self). Mothers lie to children because they're insane, creepy and mentally deranged. They breed children to manipulate, to use, to exploit; the welfare of the child is not their main consideration and you see signs of this in every single mother. Are they lying to the child? There you go. What more is there to discuss?
They breed children as extensions of their non-existent Self, to wield and manipulate in a manner that pleases them. And when the child doesn't please them, or their sociopathic attentions are drawn to a new project (like a new beau or a new baby), they're brutally cold. They're like...a girl who has followed her heart away from you; you don't exist anymore. Funny that.
They're callous because they're sociopaths. Everything they say is a lie; they're only going to be convincing if they believe their own lies but they make up truth as they go along, on the fly. Some children who've been lied to in this way cut themselves trying to get their mother's attention back; they need the emotional validation. They can't help their Self. Guys just become stalkers. They can't help their Self either.
It's ludicrous to imagine that those "up there" don't have power. They have the power of the entertainment media to condition sentiment into their masses of slaves. Their sitcoms, music, trash novels and magazines tell everyone how to feel and how to behave. What is missing is the minds of slaves; I meet no one capable or even willing when it comes to perceiving the truth about Their Own and motive.
Foucault is talking about mothers and love (an emotion used to manipulate slaves into pleasing them instead of pleasing themselves) or I'm wrong and there is only very limited value in his work.
You either understand that Narcissus was the only sane one in the story or you don't. There's a reason Alone is alone and a reason Zizek is published by Power. The reason is a very embarrassing one for Zizek; and I need to read more Foucault.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 5:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Foucault says that you must find the greatest danger to the world and put all your strength against it. He said the greatest danger was the Panopticon: confinement and surveillace.
The ante has just been upped on us. In the US the bill on the internet passed. Obama lost on the censorship bill. But this one is even better for him and the govt. BANDWIDTH IS NOW LIMITED!All social networks, comment boards, twitter, netflix, watchitnow, youtube DEVOUR bandwidth like there is no tomorrow. We have had unlimited bandwidth so far. And they are so very clever how they are doing this. The entertainment industry has been clamoring for govt to intervene to stop the pirating of movies and music into the US, that is it ruining the entertainment industry. This all sounds very reasonable and rational unless you are a Randian or radical libertarian. The govt however, now sees that it is a great gift. They can comply with the entertainment moguls because it is so reasonable a sell job to all of us. Yes business has to be protected from copyright infringement, yes? But what sneaked into this bill was that the ISP's could now limit bandwidth which will destroy all the radical social networks. This means QiWEiWei will die in China. This means wikileaks cannot continue, This means twitter cannot organize people. But it will also destroy all the idiots out there and the media is going to sell that and who doesn't want to get rid of them.
What media com just did as of January 2012, as the end of unlimited bandwidth came into effect as of 11-2012 legally and media com contracts signed before Jan 2012 are grandfathered in for unlimited. UNTIL THEIR CONTRACT EXPIRES IN 1 1/2 TO 2 YEARS. But all the new contracts beginning from Jan 2012 are subject now to bandwidth over charges as of Jan 2013. Media com bills for the preceding month so in February these people got their bills for excess bandwidth: $1200; 2$500; $8000 etc. People stream movies, games, social networks, etc and they just got hit. But worse, many didn't know they were always being billed retroactively so when they got the fist bill and slowed to a crawl they then just got the second bill as they hadn't known about retroactive billing until they got the first excess bill. Students - and this includes radical hackers - people who have moved, transients, all the people who are not sitting conservatively in their homes of many years with their internet service of many years duration. The people who don't cause the govt trouble with social networks are safe. For the moment. The ones who are smart enough to recognize the first warning are saving their own asses by downloading everything insight to DVD. My bf has his brother downloading on 6 computers 24/7 for the next year until his mother's media com goes on limited bandwidth. I remember being warned on twitter but I didn't get it the way it was worded. Now I get it. And we are all going to be marginalized as first they came for x, then they came for y, and I still didn't care, and then they came for me. And it will be too late because it will have been institutionalized by then.
Do you understand what this means? We are going to be confined just as surely if we were communicating by horse and buggy traveling. And computers now can spy on you in your home, watch you from room to room. You have read Winston in 1984 haven't you? I have not figured out a strategy but protest about it is not going to work. Only Baudrillard's and Nietzsche's excess stands a chance.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 5:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually this is what Krishnamurti says. that sex breeds children and all our problems are over population problems. Then he discusses sex, having erotic sex without ejaculation, and only ejaculating when the two of you wish to conceive. Sex as cosmic union between two people, rather than a discharge of pent up tension.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh, I'm absolutely sure she wasn't the only one I've known. Just the only one who plainly advertised her acid-throwing and desire to never contribute anything to society. I don't socialize with people enough to pick up on subtlety or get to know others very well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 6:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Power is in an inseparable realtion with knowledge. It is always power/knowledge glued together.
Either Foucault is an idiot or you've misunderstood him (I believe the latter, from what I've read he's no idiot). But rather than ramble on, I'll just ask you a question:
How much power did Foucault have? When he had a monumental amount of knowledge, how much power did he have?
Power is in an inseparable relation with restriction of knowledge; mothers have power because they imprint children to die for them. You might not realise how sick and twisted they are; but you would when one of their psychotic victims is holding your throat imagining you've said a bad word about his mother. They'll kill you for that. Mean words.
Power is sustained via tricking humans into becoming partners in your pyramid scheme of exploitation. Everything always ends up with exploited parents exploiting slave children at the bottom run of the pyramid; slaves paying slaves with Emotional Currency (pride, pleasure, love, etc).
The Patron System and Religion and the State all operate this way and they're not knowledgeable; they're imbeciles. Only imbeciles have power because anyone speaking truth talks about empowering Self. Freeing your Self from the lies of Power.
Like Buddha, for example.
Power is the exact opposite of everything Buddha said. Power is slavery via imprinting ('persuading' broken humans with terror and love to be your willing slave). Thaksin did this with the Red Shirts in Thailand, terrified them into sidling up to his (admittedly terrifying) campaign - lots of fire, kill, burn, destroy anyone who speaks out. They burst into a major print daily's offices, smashing up the place, pointing guns at editors' and reporters' heads, threatening them and the positive articles get rolled out. And when CNN's on the terrorists' side...
Mothers do this with their children. Sticks and carrots. It's Stockholm Syndrome. It's love. Impossibly dark and murky and disturbingly exploitable. Self-less. That's why love = power.
Packer is following Jesus in his turning over the tables of the money changers in their temple of finance, the Sacred Temple in the Symbolic Order.
Jesus was a revolutionary; that's the only reason he did that. He was a lying sociopath as well, making up truth as he went along (in Matthew 19 he gives four starkly different answers to the same question).
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's."
That's a validation of power's authority. That's saying "Respect power, but give me some power too." (Sounds a bit like that moron Zizek).
The argument that the anti-Iraq War protests strengthened the system are utterly fallacious. If a greater number had been convinced of the obvious, the masses would have literally forced the impeachment of Bush. But there were too many snivelling victims of their mother, trained to respect authority and trust Their Own to be on their side when logically, it's always going to be the other way around (exploitation via secrecy and lies).
In Matthew Jesus brings a sword to divide child from parent; husband from wife; friends from friends, etc. Not a sword of turn the other cheek and peace. But that Jesus must be a concealed secret masked by humility, love, and servitude.
He's a two-faced, lying Son of a whore (literally, immaculate pfft). Jesus was a sociopath. Every Christian is a lying sociopath.
Luke 14:33 (KJV) 33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
You ever meet a Christian that has forsaken all that they have?
Well there you go.
"Go, and [fail to perceive the nature of power] no more."
Jesus understood Power. That's what Sin is all about. Lies. Lies. And mothers who raise slaves imprinted with emotive root-kids, literally bred to suffer to please.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 6:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually this is what Krishnamurti says. that sex breeds children and all our problems are over population problems. Then he discusses sex, having erotic sex without ejaculation, and only ejaculating when the two of you wish to conceive. Sex as cosmic union
All these guys are not speaking truth directly. They dance around the issue for fear of offending power.
Power is about sustained slavery; i.e. slaves breeding slaves in misery, in need.
Mothers need to break their children or the child's Self will please itself; that's no good for mothers, they're leeches. Leeches need others to please them and sustain them. They can't stand on their own two feet.
The problem isn't overpopulation; that's such a snivelling diplomatic way to skirt the issue. The problem is the motive women have for bearing children. Their motives are not decent.
They're liars; they're conditioned to be liars and imagine they're entitled to take advantage of men's delusional failure to appreciate what the Greeks would tell them if they read mythology or what reading about female reproductive biology would tell them. Women enjoy sex a lot more than men. They're liars once the acid hits them.
All the acid is sourced from mothers, who are leaching and do not wish to contribute or produce. They'll breed two slaves they raised to please them and the public, a sacrifice on the altar of public opinion. Everyone happy?
No one is happy. How can you be happy in a world of lies and exploitation of you by Your own. Love = guaranteed misery. It's hilarious that everyone pretends otherwise. When love is over, no winners. Just a loser with PSTD and one nonchalant sociopath who follows their heart to new prey.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 7:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You will have to spend serious downtime reading Foucault to understand what I said about power. Yes one perceives the person who can torture and kill you as having power. But he doesn't. It is the "office" the "role" he is inhabiting that invests him with the power to kill you.Take that away and he is just another shabby human. Meet him in the wold, just you and him to the Death. Does he have power? Or is he just stronger? Or do you not know how to fight? Or or or........Just study Foucault, as these emotional outbursts will not do any good for you or anyone else. You are simply repeating and ventilating endlessly. I know the shrinks say you need to do this but you don't. Yes you need to put it into words that transform it. I don't have any answers. I can't tell you how you might do that. It is a pure rage that is justified. Vomiting the same words over and over do not and will not help. You are trying to tell yourself something by repeating them. I don't know what that something is.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 7:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Men are leaders, women are followers. Men go their own way, women go with the herd. This is why women will never have real power.
Do you think a bunch of women could have broken from Europe and started a successful nation like the founding fathers did? Of course not, because women follow. Women are not iconoclasts. Men take risks, women do not.
Once upon a time in high school, my sister was doing a painting that was supposed to represent her personality. She asked me how she could paint that she didn't care about school. I then reminded her that she always got a 4.0, and she replied that she cared about getting good grades, but she didn't like studying. I then told her that if she wanted to show she didn't care about school, then she shouldn't paint anything at all. Unfortunately, she painted a bunch of girly stuff and that was that.
You see, women want social approval above all else, so they try to be the #1 disciple cheerleader teammate employee fan, and from their safe place in the herd, they also want to be seen as a unique individual. These wants and needs conflict, thus the "deep feelings" they have.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 23, 2013 8:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone: And if the girls did nothing, it means they were taught to do nothing, and the people most responsible for that lesson was other women.
Alone: ...the pathology of the generation is narcissism, the ad knows about, and works only on, a society eyeballs deep in narcissism, that requires its identity broadcast by branded objects but validated by other people.Forget about the gun/masculinity interaction, it is a red herring; the problem is the cycle of wanting outsiders to tell you who you are...
Either Alone is writing about misogyny being driven by women, who raise children without Self who are reliant on external emotional validation or I am utterly out of my mind.
nb. I'm not out of my mind.
This is the problem. It's always been the problem. It will always be the problem until it all goes Boom. Power is the problem. It cannot exist without mothers conditioning their children to be insane without Self. Slaves are dependent; that's why they're slaves.
The acid is thrown at girls who recoil and then perceive opportunity in exploiting the lie; it's a trap that produces mindless, cunning slugs, lazy and indolent and too ignorant / stupid not to be malicious with entitled piety. Men exist to be ridden. When the illusory demand for their whore legs to split evaporates, oh shit! No more men to leech off. Need kids.
And the cycle begins anew.
Women enslave themselves imagining they're shrewd but they're stupid little corrupt Toddlers who end up handing over slave children to Polite Society to molest, all trussed up and emotionally poisoned, set up by Their Own for quick and easy rape and Society doesn't use lubrication. It's sink or swim for children in the deep end and mothers have tied Self-defeating corrupted emotional constructs to their ankles to weigh them down before throwing them in with the sharks. Reality is brutal for children who have been lied to. I have literally seen mothers emotionally manipulate (i.e. bully) their children into things as insane as standing up to bullies; firing the cowardly (i.e. sane) child up with pure filth like "you must take after your father" (who ostensibly abandoned them and if he made a mistake, it was running too late) and "do you want your sister to hold your hand?" I dunno what happened to that kid but have you seen what happens to a child who stands up to Reality?
They get steamrolled. It's not Disney. The scene ends only when the child cannot / does not ever wish to stand up again. I've seen some brave kids stand up a lot of times. Trust me, no one is impressed by the redundant bravery displayed of victims of exploitation. Chicks do not dig scars. Mothers prepare children to kill and die for Their Own. If children only killed and died for Selfish interests, you would never see wars of attrition; there wouldn't be any war or even any violence. These are not Selfish pursuits.
The Self-less, however, will clear minefields with their feet and run unarmed into automatic gunfire and straight into Paradise just for a glowing beam from a proud - unthinkably vile - mother. #Basiji
Love is Self-less. In nature, it's felt solely by mothers who'll die for their offspring (but are rarely required to, cause a meal simply isn't worth a non-bluffing mother's "over my dead body"). In humans, mothers use it as a manipulation tool on men and children, callously discarding them as it suits their perceived whims. It's a tool used to make others exploitable enough to take 'advantage'; and when their malice is met with a non-exploitable guy, the lying whores have the gall to whine about being used. Humans should never feel this emotion "love" unless they've recently given birth.
It's insane to feel that way, that's why. Humans were coded to be Selfishly humane; but mothers need slaves because they've been lying to men for a long, long time about sex. But don't tell a soul any of this, okay? Keep this exclusively between us. Mum's the word.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 3:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here you are jonny. Tiqqun has done it for you.Theory of the YOung Girl:
In our estimation, this ruse doesn't work any more in the face of today's bloom-esque attention span fragmen- tation. We've chosen a diff erent one. Minds looking for moral comfort or for vice to condemn will fi nd in these scattered pages but roads that will lead them nowhere. In fact we're not so much trying to convert Young-Girls as we are trying to trace out all the corners of a fractalized battlefront of Young-Girlization. And to supply the weapons for a hand to hand, blow by blow fi ght, wherever you may fi nd yourself.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
NOT in the dialectical Dominating Discourse.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 3:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
More:
The Young-Girl is old already insofar as she knows herself to be young. So for her it's just a question of making the most of that suspended sentence, that is, committing the few reasonable excesses and living the few \adventures" expected of her age, all in view of a moment when she'll have to quiet down into the nal nothingness of adulthood. Thus, the social law contains in itself both the rotted time of youth and its violation, which are nothing after all but exceptions to it. The Young-Girl is crazy about the authentic because it's a lie.
Now this is how you do it. How you write and think about freedom.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 3:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The raging hunger for amusement that the Young-Girl and all other Blooms have is rooted in anguish. One second the Young-Girl is naked/bare life, and the next she's dressed-up death. In fact, the Young-Girl is what holds them both together constantly. The Young-Girl is closed in on herself; at rst this is fasci- nating, and then it starts to rot.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 3:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Do you see how marginalized and fragmented the focus on make up is in the giant scheme of things. Begin from that POV and you end up with a thread throwing bee-bee pellets at women and society. The post on make up is just a piece, a fragment, maybe a fragment of a fragment in this war we are all in. How can you use your strength if you don't understand the strategy of the war?
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 4:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
More jonny. Your terroristic childhood freed you from the terror of the socially engineered consumer society. But it did an amazing thing for you because it allowed you to see what could not be invisible.Do you see what a break that was. What you say is always correct. The way you say it corresponds to the way they want you to say it because then it folds into the accepted Discourse. Marcuse's Pac-Man metaphor again. Your thinking is too convoluted to convince anyone, and besides convincing is not the point as we are at war. I am trying to decode you for you. This article does it better than I could ever know how.
\The youth and their mothers," acknowledges Stuart Ewen, \will supply the social principles of consumer ethics to the lifestyles off ered by advertising."
Same link as above.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 5:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Very visible physical imperfections, even if they do not in any way affect the aptitude for work,socially weaken people,transforming them into labor's involuntary cripples. (Dr.Julius Moses,Afa-Bundeszeitung,February,1929).
Theory of the Young-Girl link.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 5:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The mother and the whore, in Weininger's sense, are both equally present in the Young-Girl. But the one hardly makes her any more praiseworthy than the other makes her blameworthy. Over time, a curious reversibility between the two can even be observed.
Hope you like all this work of mine jonny
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 5:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
\A piece of information I gathered at a large well- known Berlin department store is particularly in- structive: `when we recruit sales and administra- tive personnel,' said an important personage from the personnel service, `we put a high importance on a pleasing appearance.' From a distance he resem- bled the actor Reinhold Schunzel in his old movies. I asked him what he meant by that, whether it was a question of being sexy or just cute. `Not exactly cute,' he said, `it's about having a morally healthy glow about oneself.\I understand, actually. A morally healthy glow|
that assemblage of concepts clari es at once an every-
day fact about decorated shopwindows, wage work-
ers, and illustrated magazines. Their morality should
be kind of rosy-cheeked, their rosy cheeks stamped
with morality. That's what those who are in charge
of selection are looking for; they want to extend into
real life a veneer that hides a reality that's anything
but rosy.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 6:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Even more than the female Young-Girl, the male Young-Girl shows with his imitation musculature all the character of absur- dity, that is, of su ering, of what Foucault called \the discipline of the body" : \Discipline increases the forces of the body (in eco- nomic terms of utility) and decreases those same forces (in political terms of obedience). In a word: it dis- sociates the power of the body; on the one hand it makes it into an \aptitude" and a \capacity," which it seeks to increase; and on the other hand it inverts the energy, the power that could result from it and makes a strict relationship of subjection out of it. (Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 6:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
\So, it's useful, then, to conceive of the birth of the `young girl' as the construction of an object which di erent disciplines converge to build (from medicine to psychology, from physical education to moral ed- ucation, from physiology to hygiene)." (Jean-Claude Caron, Young Girls' Bodies)
Am I exhausting all of you yet. Have you gone to the links?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 6:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Notice the word "whore" jonny. You are traumatized by your childhood, but you have the unbelievable good fortune to have "seen" it.
The Young-Girl's sentimentalism and materialism are but two complementary aspects of her central nothingness, no matter how opposite they may be in appearance. The Young-Girl enjoys speaking of her childhood with great emotion, to suggest that she hasn't got beyond it, and that fun- damentally she's remained naive. Like all whores, she dreams of innocence. But, distinct from them, she demands to be believed, and believed sincerely. Her childishness, which is, in the end, but a fundamentalism of infancy, makes her the most cunning vector of the general infantilization.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 6:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When the Young-Girl has come to the end of the age of child- ishness, where it becomes impossible to not ask herself about ends without suddenly nding herself short of means (which can happen pretty late in this society), she reproduces. Paternity and maternity comprise just another way among others, and no less free of substance, to remain UNDER THE EMPIRE OF NEED.
Didn't someone above call this settling down?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 6:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
\The fundamental ideological confusion between women and sexuality . . . only today has achieved its fullest amplitude, be- cause women, who once were subjugated as a gender, are to- day `LIBERATED' as a gender . . .Women, youths, bodies, the emergence of which after thousands of years of servitude and forgetting in e ect constitute the most revolutionary potential- ity there is, and thus the most fundamental risk there is to any established order|are today integrated and recuperated as an `emancipation myth.' `Woman' is given to women to consume; Youth is given to youths to consume, and in this formal, nar- cissistic emancipation, their real liberation can be successfully prevented." (Jean-Trissotin Baudrillard, The Consumer Soci- ety.)
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf You can tell me to stop you know.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 7:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What's dying shows on its surface that it's coming to an end. And the Young-Girl's all-out gender armation is a clear 17 demonstration of the fact that the classical gender roles are dy- ing, meaning that their material basis is dying. The specter of Man and Woman haunts the metropolis' streets. Their muscles come from the Workout Club and their breasts are silicone.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 7:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
\The deeply rooted instinct among women that urges them to use perfumes is the manifestation of a bio- logical law. The primary duty of a woman is to be attractive . . . It hardly matters how intelligent or in- dependent you are; if you can't in uence the men that you meet, consciously or not, you won't meet your fundamental obligation as a woman . . . " (1920s perfume ad from the US)
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 7:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Whatever extent her narcissism reaches to, the Young-Girl doesn't love herself, what she loves is \her" image, that is, some- thing that's not just foreign and external, but which, in the full sense of the term, possesses her. And the Young-Girl lives be- neath the tyranny of this ungrateful master. The Young-Girl is above all a perspective on the passing of time, but a perspective incarnate. 22
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 8:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You can stop quoting. The book is hitting every other ball out of the park.
The Young-Girl is an engine for reducing everything that comes in contact with her to a Young-Girl.
I'd never heard of this book but therein lies the retardation of Humanity. Reduced to corrupted emotional Toddlers, by mothers who are vile corrupted Toddler sociopaths concerned only with what is Right and Wrong (as determined & defined by them, in privacy).
5000 years of emotional regression. It's horrifying.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 8:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't even *like* you right now. All you're doing is shoulding to death, something anyone can get from any idiot on any elevator or any crosstown bus. You should shut up.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 8:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm just sitting here reading it and crying because I know and it is so relentlessly written and so beautifully that I can't stop reading it through my tears. I have nothing more to say. Ever maybe.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 8:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What has "liking" me got to do with it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 8:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It is precisely by conferring upon her body but more generally upon her whole being the character of capital, that the Young-Girl is dispossessed.
This is what Alone is driving at with the above article and what I was saying with placing value on body > mind; they make slaves out of themselves in their obsession with manufacturing deceitful illusions to catch Mr Right.
But in the meantime, Mr Right Now for some fun. Mr Right only becomes a serious priority when the clock is running out. And suddenly, they're all about children and settling down into their needy 'adult' role.
______________
I hope kdetx can perceive what appears to be painfully evident.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 10:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Of course I do. But we're all just spinning our wheels here talking about it, as if arriving at some conclusion will make any difference. I'll be enjoying my materialistic needy life until I come across some way that a single man can take one drastic action that fells all the oppressors in a single sweep. That's what I'm about.
Take care.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 10:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I was thinking about that when I read it and pasted it. I was interrupted and haven't finished it yet, only 1/2 way thru. This is Lady Gaga BTW she carries it to such an extreme that she is "realer than real."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 10:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We are not talking about it. I am reading it and haven't gotten to the end of it yet. As was said in the preface this is about war. And you think you are going to do it in one fell swoop. That's quite a fantasy. 7 at one blow huh. Kristen Stewart is making a dent in it that's for sure.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 10:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This guy is a genius.
The Young-Girl is old already insofar as she knows herself to be young. So for her it's just a question of making the most of that suspended sentence, that is, committing the few reasonable excesses and living the few "adventures" expected of her age, all in view of a moment when she'll have to quiet down into the final nothingness of adulthood.Often, before decomposing too visibly, the Young-Girl gets married.
The Young-Girl is good for nothing but consuming; leisure or work, it makes no difference.
The Young-Girl never creates anything; she re-creates herself.
By investing youth and women with an absurd symbolic surplus value, by making them the exclusive bearers of the new esoteric knowledge proper to the new social organization - that of consumption and seduction - the Spectacle has thus freed the slaves of the past, but has freed them AS SLAVES.
The most extreme banality of the Young-Girl is still to have herself taken as something "original."
The scrawny character of the Young-Girl's language, though it implies an incontestable retraction of the field of experience, does not in any way constitute a practical handicap, since it's not made for talking but for pleasing and repeating.
Blather, curiosity, ambiguity, hearsay; the Young-Girl incarnates the fullness of a misfit existence.
The Young-Girl is a lie, the apogee of which is her face.
This is what I've been trying to say for a very long time. It's not about the makeup so much as what cosmetics represent; that resolute and terrifying nonchalance at brazen deceit; by definition, an act of malice.
Long before I cared a twig about ethics (i.e. when I was 100% amoral), cosmetics terrified me because makeup is batshit insane. I had no problems with the malice; my problem was with the casual revealing of intent to the point where it's advertised. But people can't understand predators are screaming "I'm a predator" when the banners serving notice to this fact are being draped across every girl's face.
"They're lying. They're dangerous. Look at their faces. They're willing to deceive you. It's all they're interested in. How can you be cool with this?"
People just looked at me like I was crazy. But then they've done that since I was five. I was insane from 14-29; but that was a very pretty Young-Girl who screwed up her nose and made a law-abiding citizen out of me in about five seconds flat.
__________________________
Will you still have children, kdetx? That's the only important consideration, I suspect.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 24, 2013 11:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
a book written in 99 by the tiqqunsters of france, attacking the "cookie cutter" pseudo-persons created in accordance with the so called "YoungGirl," a "blueprint-person" which acts as a universal model in human relationships, lifestyles, body image, etc., and brings the empire ever closer to full physical domination over every human being ...even to their very genitals!
I think this is a group effort. http://libcom.org/news/raw-materials-theory-young-girl-27012010 I've been with it all day.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 12:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The revolting thing isn't that the Young-Girl is fundamen- tally a whore, but that she refuses to see herself as one. Since the whore, not being just purchased, but also selling herself, is a maximalist fi gure of autonomy on the commodity terrain. The Young-Girl is a thing to the exact extent that she takes herself 36 for a human being; she is a human being to the exact extent that she takes herself for a thing.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 1:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This guy is a genius.
"What's alive doesn't need to ever-increasingly declare itself."
The book kills you guys off, and it kills itself off.
You're right, that is genius.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 1:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't see how it is important. Either I do and perpetuate the misery you've created for yourself, or I don't and I pass on in obscurity. No difference either way.
You piqued my interest, jonny, because I thought maybe you could help me end the whole thing. I don't have a fraction of the thinking power you do. I only have fury. But you spurned me and told me I was wrong for caring about a girl just trying to get by the only way she ever knew how. She isn't as smart as you or Alone, and neither am I. This discussion is above my station and I feel silly for speaking up.
I appreciate the things you and seymourblogger have said, but now I understand why all people make me feel like I am crazy for thinking I could save everyone myself if I just had a better meat machine to work with or a more capable brain, or if I could replace the meat with metal. If you think too big you have "grandiosity" and they have a place for you in the DSM. It's all a nice construct to make the rest of the world feel better about their impotence. I'm just pathological and looking for a womb. That's some fantasy.
Well, unlike you, I can be content with the needy. I'll keep her safe from the acid and from her sexual deviant of a father and whatever else you and your world can come up with. Enjoy your misery, you seem to go out of your way to find it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 2:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't see how it is important.
I was trying to clarify that I wasn't attacking your relationship when I said that. But you are correct; in the scheme of billions of people breeding, nothing is ever going to matter. At all.
But you spurned me and told me I was wrong for caring about a girl just trying to get by the only way she ever knew how.
I deny the above charge. I fear you may have perceived this on your own.
...now I understand why all people make me feel like I am crazy for thinking I could save everyone myself...If you think too big you have "grandiosity" and they have a place for you in the DSM.
I don't go in for sneering much myself, these days. But you have to admit the problem is beyond the capacity of super-humans to fix. I personally am not motivated with saving people who don't want to believe there's a problem (let alone believe they need assistance) and there's 7 billion of them to 0. I'm merely learning as much as I can for personal reasons.
Well, unlike you, I can be content with the needy. I'll keep her safe from the acid and from her sexual deviant of a father and whatever else you and your world can come up with. Enjoy your misery, you seem to go out of your way to find it.
Your emotion here isn't warranted. Truth cannot be considerate or it would not be true. You would note the reticence in my pointing out the obvious; someone had to do it but I'm not judging you. But if you didn't do the same for me, I would hold it against you.
If you said "I didn't want to spoil your happiness or hurt your feelings", then we're talking serious offence.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 2:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No one can save anyone else in the sense you are using it. You can hold out your hand to help, and they can grasp it if they choose. That is all you can do.
In the sense you save a physical life that is different. As Chinese wisdom says: be very careful when you save a life. The person whom you save is forever in your debt. You have given the "gift" of life to that person. It is Impossible Exchange," as they can never repay the debt. But in the Symbolic Order they must. It does not have to be right away, but they must. And the counter-gift must be greater than your original gift was, or they must suicide. The Symmbolic Order must be obeyed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 2:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I would suggest beginning by reading the links today. In the book are some quotes. The next thing I usually do is follow the sources of the quotes. Since one is Jean Baudrillard, I would start with him. I think it is own commodities so you could begin there. But I think you would like his Cool Memories 1,2,3,4,5,6, in any order. They are not long, can be bought cheaply on Amazon or half.ebay.com. What I did was to search, find the cheapest price of any of his and buy that one. The Intelligence of Evil is usually available. All of his writing is good. I would stay away from Symbolic Exchange and Death, as it was his first and is a textbook written in that style instead of his fragment writing following Nietzsche. Also Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals from which came the saving of a life. In N's case it had to do with his part in there of his genealogy of God. If you don't have a clear understanding you can't really do anything. If you want to save her, then that means she needs saving in your eyes. It means you are the strong one and she is the weak one. You are dominant and she is submissive. Can you see her as perfect the way she is? Can you see yourself as perfect the way you are? Baudrillard again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 2:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. It disappears everything. And you are left seeing with a rare clarity. All the impotent outrage disappears too. I also am seeing clearly now. And my replies are clearer. What else is needed for me but just to reply with clarity. Right now. Right here. Now.
A number of people wrote this who obviously wish to remain anonymous. People who are well immersed in continental philosophy. This book is very indebted to Baudrillard. And Baudrillard is indebted to Nietzsche.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 6:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Because the Young-Girl is the living presence of everything that wishes us a humane death, she's not just the purest product of the Spectacle, but the plastic proof of the love that we give it. She's the path down which we follow our own loss of self.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf I remember this one of yours jonny about your little sister.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 6:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
For curioushairedgal here also:
"Not to merely struggle against the dominant schizoid state, against our schizoid state, but to begin there, in making use of subjectivation and desubjectivation as pure faculty, as capacity for experimentation. Break away from the old anguish of “who am I really?” in favor of the recognition of my situation and the possible use of it." http://translationcollective.f... 0 •Reply•Share ›abbeysbooks Mod curioushairedgal • in a few seconds −
5:30 am and have been reading it all day and all night while sitting zazen and going in and out of consciousness. Just wonderful. The time I have spent with the Young-Girl of this fandom is more than I can stand in myself. Thank you for freeing me. Still not finished.
It changes your present, any future you have been imagining, but more it resonates back in time as far as you remember when any memory occurs to you. What a gift.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 6:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Young-Girls comprise the infantry of visibility's occupation troops, the rank and le of the present dictatorship of appear- ances. The Young-Girl nds herself to be in a relationship of im- mediacy and anity with everything competing to reformat hu- manity. Each Young-Girl comprises, in her own way, an advanced outpost of the imperialism of insigni cance. Viewed from a whole-territory perspective, the Young-Girl appears as the most powerful vector of the tyranny of servitude. Any manifestation of non-submissiveness makes her furious. And in that sense a kind of totalitarian social-democracy suits her marvelously.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 7:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Contrary to the young girls of Babylon, who, according to Strabon, turned over to the temple the income they obtained through their prostitution, the Young-Girl's prostitution pro ts the Spectacle, and she doesn't even know it.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 7:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
\Furthermore, and this is where the schoolgirl's true pandemonium began, there was a whole pile of con- dential letters sent by judges, lawyers, and prose- cutors, pharmacists, businessmen, city or rural nota- bles, doctors, etc., letters sent by all these remarkable and brilliant people who'd always inspired so much respect in me! I couldn't shake o my surprise . . . So they too, in spite of appearances, were having rela- tions with the schoolgirl? `Incredible,' I repeated to myself; `it's incredible.' So this Maturity weighed upon them so heavily that they wrote long letters to a modern 1st year schoolgirl, hiding it all from their wives and children? . . . These letters made me fully realize all the enormous power of the modern schoolgirl. Where, indeed, did she NOT dominate? (Gombrowicz, Ferdydurke)
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf The Polish writer Gombrowicz either went to the camps, was killed or suicided. I forget. Check wiki
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 7:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The Young-Girl is an instrument in the service of a general policy to exterminate beings capable of love.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 8:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
To jonny.
So you have experienced Young-Girl in childhood only without any of the veils of illusion. Without the SPECTACLE. You got it REAL and undiluted.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 8:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Her hatred for everything great,
everything that is outside the reach of consumerism, is immea-
surable.
The Young-Girl has enough \concrete" about her to not suc-
cumb to the metaphysical feeling of her own nothingness.
\Evil is whatever distracts." (Kafka)
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 8:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Ha this is why they hate Kristen so much. They will never forgive her until she reenlists in their army.
No betrayal is punished more severely by the Young-Girl than that of the Young-Girl that deserts the Young-Girls' Army, or claims to liberate herself from it.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 10:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Anyway- I think SB and Jonny live in Opposites Land, the land where everything is inverted. So when they call all women whores, that means that in reality, women cannot be bought even if bits of them might be rented. But still, they cannot be bought, and part of them is always secret and always has integrity. Always.
When they say … when Jonny says he hates Maria Von Trapp, that means that in reality, MVT is kick-ass. When SB says he loves Kristen Stewart, that means: big fucking deal, so she wears sneakers and jeans, it is hardly a revolution.
When Jonny says whores who have lots of sex for free are the best, what that means is that girls should try to find someone who is nice who takes care of them sexually and otherwise so they don’t have to prowl the streets like alley cats.
When Jonny says mothers with children are terrible evil sociopaths who only do it because they want someone, men or children, to see them as virtuous and take care of them, that means that most mothers are self-sacrificing for their children, they have a hard time because they struggle because we live in a society that does not take care of it’s mothers. It means that most women out of love and not good self interest have babies because they have this female instinct. Then it can be quite a hard road, much harder than they thought when they made a baby out of love. (I personally had an adult entertainment type body, then I got pregnant and totally wrecked it).
When SB says young girls are all about death, consumer culture, being plastic, she means that young girls are a compelling symbol of young life, of hope, fresh energy. It means young girls are naturally able to assimilate lots of things and use them for themselves and others with resourcefulness and creativity and that they are quite beyond consumer culture, even as they will use it when it serves their purposes. It means arguments about makeup or not-makeup are beyond them. They are larger than that. Saying they are plastic means that young girls are powerful symbols of the real, of feelings and possibility.
And so on and so on.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 11:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Amazingly profound, possibly the best article I've read on feminism. Please, keep posting, you earned yourself a new reader.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 3:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you read the tiqqun article on feminism written by an anonymous collaborative in France. Now this one is cutting edge of the mind.The links are all above on my comments.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 3:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you even look at the tiqqun book written collaboratively by an anonymous group of writers. It is the best thing on feminism yet. The raw theory of the Young-Girl supports everything jonny has said and me too. Please, I am begging you to at least look at it. All my comments above have links. Unless you yourself are That Young-Girl.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 7:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Introduction to the 1999 edition of Raw Theory of the Young-Girl
Outside of the ever more numerous places where it must visibly wage war, domination in its most advanced forms usually refrains from using brute force. Thus it's come to re ne its procedures to such an extent that it's made itself relatively invisible.
http://libcom.org/files/jeune-fille.pdf
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 7:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
such an investment of time and energy means you'll only miss me more when I am gone. also, your link doesn't work.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 7:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Try pasting it in your browser.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 7:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I checked and it worked for me. People all over are having browser trouble with links today. Probably has to do with the new html6. Try Chrome.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 8:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
some of us try to use Hedbrew terms and concepts within the spirit of what was intended. The one true thing I saw was that people may be making their own karma with how they use this information. I can only hope so.God, every poseur in the world is just determined to misuse and appropriate Jewish mysticism for their own purposes. It must be pretty powerful stuff if so many people want to sully it. I'd like to say everybody has a journey but you are not supposed to read this material and stay in the same place you are in.... Some things are best left to people who know how to handle them. I do not consider this an example of how to handle them appropriately. At all. I do not consider you, on the whole, to be a good example of how to handle so many things. There must be something you do well...
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 8:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not trying to handle anything. I am not the authoritarian subject you are looking for who knows what's best, where it is best, who is best to present it and how, etc. It's out there and people read and understand what their defense mechanisms allow to get through. You don't have to play God and decide for them nor does anyone else.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 8:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are the one that is defensive; I was offensive, I was pissed. As far as playing God, each of us does that every day with every action we do or do not do. Just because one won't accept any responsibility for it does not mean they are not doing it. And you can be sure that in the choices you self righteously choose to not make, someone will come along and use what you chose to leave behind for themselves. For their own purposes. So you may as well take as many choices as you can get, as there is nop virtue in leaving them behind, except maybe for yourself, to yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 25, 2013 10:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't have the faintest idea what you are pissed about or anything else.
From: In the Dark.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 1:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anyway- I think SB and Jonny live in Opposites Land, the land where everything is inverted. So when they...
Don't look now, but you haven't made a logical argument. No doubt you will feel otherwise, perhaps very strongly. This has no bearing on what is real. Your feelings are batshit insane. That's why you are irrelevant. You cannot make a logical case and you don't even want to be sane. You lack the capacity to rationalise your feelings prior to expressing them.
You know, I've come across your type before. I've just finished reading about book about you, in fact. If I thought you were literate, I'd link you to it. It's about Young-Girls.
How you feel is not an argument. It's nauseating that you could imagine a motive to embarrass yourself like this and I presume you intend to proceed with existing in such a reduced state? Your existence is a affront to every consideration of decency. You should be sterilised and warned to keep your screaming feelings to yourself until you're ready to make an argument for why you feel that way.
Again, the mere fact that you do feel that way is not an argument. This isn't my 'opinion'. You're provably insane. Fix it or Humanity must fix you.
I'm not going to say "please" or ask you nicely. Your sanity is not a favor to me. Your insanity is an imposition on Humanity. You're a liability who cannot be permitted to breed but of course you are a mother or you want to be.
You're a needy leech. You need to be treated until you're at peace, one way or another.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 2:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well that was certainly a strongly worded reply. Yes, I think this is strong evidence of the conceptual thinking of the Young-Girl. Sort of tabloidy dallying. But look, the idea of inversion may have application for Shirley i some other way i the future. Look what it did for Levi-Strauss when he turned the Oedipus myth on its head to say the first act of aggression was the father planning the murder of his baby son, when the myth had always been read before as Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother. Maybe there will be fruit in the future for Shirley, an awakening Shirley will experience as a surprise.
Simmer down, put the lid on and cook slowly. I still think you received a great gift. An awesome one. One in the raw without the veils of illusion. Glad you liked tiqqun. I read their BLOOM today and it seems some of them who wrote for tiqqum had been arrested for writing The Coming Insurrection in 08, also founded tiqqun. The fact that these writings are collaborative and published as gifts is an awesome thing.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 1:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
no, sb and jonny are just dumb.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 1:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
One day this screaming world of leeches will understand the true insanity that is represented by the perceived need to express one's instantly invalidated opinion without bothering to indulge pesky considerations of sanity. It's democratic to feel how you've been led to feel and not to feel you need to make a case, but it's not sane.
"No, you're dumb."
Do you have a Toddler retort? Or are you willing to concede the prescient wisdom in the assertion that to express yourself as you have done (an expression of felt feelings sans logical argument for why you feel that way) is batshit screaming insane?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 4:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well if you go back and read tiqqun they are discussing what's coming next. The Young-Girl is just a giant leap forward into Virtual Reality. The Young-Girl is a simulacrum in her Simulated Reality which enfolds us in it. This is what needs to be seen and fought. Arguing with "Young-Girls" is not going to get us there, nor is castigating them. Aome of the tiqqun collarborative has been arrested for fug's sake for something else they wrote called "The Coming Insurrection" in 2008. These people are not playing around on comment boards and neither should you be. You have work to do jonny. What I do is follow where the universe is taking me and I landed up on The Last Psychiatrist. I just comment and do my thing and very soon their Dominating Discourse gets threatened but I don't go away and since I can argue smarter and with much more watching my back, I continue. Soon there is always that person who understands what I am writing. Here, that is you. That person is whom the universe was sending me to meet. I stop bothering with the others. They are just a foil for me to hone my thinking and are a great help to me in shaping the way I want to communicate to those who are interested. There is no one I have read so far that is more suited to you than the tiqqun collaborative. Follow them. Let the dead bury the dead here.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 4:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"just dumb" the last resort of the uneducated. Education really does drive families apart. Parents are right to fear it. It will cost them their children if they cannot at least be tolerant. It split Baudrillard from his family. He was the first in all his family to get higher education. He broke with them. And he broke with many French intellectuals. He always considered himself an outsider. Correctly so. The tiqqun collaborative follows Baudrillard quite faithfully and irreverently.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 4:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you have misinterpreted. but that's par for the course.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 4:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
puppylander you have named yourself correctly. Have you been studying Lacan. Go back to puppyland. That's where you belong. Leave the grown-ups alone. All you do is make them want to punish you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 4:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
oh. the last resort of the uneducated? or have you also "misinterpreted"?
i mean, i'm sure you can go back to stroking jonny's penis, er, ego. but i don't think that's what you meant by "grown-up".
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 4:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I begin to suspect a solution to Young-Girlism might be somewhere near the intersection of Taoism and Stoicism, where you expect reality to be what it is and you choose to live simply and to use self control to keep you from being overwhelmed by emotions. Taoism simply says that the universe is what it's supposed to be.
I differ somewhat in that I think feelings are natural to humans, we're born with them. I just don't think it's good to be ruled by them. There's a difference. Saying "I feel hurt" is not bad in itself, but once you decide to let that momentary emotion rule you, the hurt owns you too. Humans will always have the human nature as it were. The stuff you talk about is the natural outgrowth of humans living in a civilization made of humans. Using a soft technique and subverting it is more likely to get a good result than trying to hit it head on.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 4:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It becomes sadistic fun to push your buttons. Have you encountered that before? I wonder what stupidity you will reply to this comment.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 5:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Young-Girl is invisible. "An object cannot be seen unless and until it is observed." - William Burroughs. Tiqqun is observing the Young-Girl for us because s/he is invisible. The Young-Girl is not gendered nor is the Young-Girl young. S/He is ageless. The Young-Girl is the last weighing station for "commodity fascism". But it's about 100 pages and though very readable is definitely almost invisibly packed with a great deal of intellectual knowledge. You don't write something like that without having done your homework.
As to feelings, and the way you write about feelings, I suggest you read Wittgenstein on feelings before you step any deeper in the slush.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh and there is no solution to the Young-Girl. The Young-Girl is a human who has completely interfaced with commodity and the social network of commodifications which includes not only things but ideals, thoughts, feelings, your genitals and how you use them. How you fuck is now determined by the commodity of fucking. You yourself already do that. Did you know that? Most of what passes for fucking is really mutual masturbation. The simulacrum of humanity is taking over. Cloning. And it is invisible. This is why Stephenie Meyer's The Host will be a success.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 5:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From Masha Tupitsyn on writing:
The problem with a lot of writing, even good writing, is that ideas bow to syntax instead of the other way around. For me, syntax is almost entirely shaped and informed by ideas. By the way a writer and thinker thinks. This is what makes someone’s work unique. Without syntax-as-thinking and thinking-as-syntax (think of Gertrude Stein and Samuel Beckett) everyone thinks and sounds the same. This kind of relation to syntax is what makes writing both difficult and interesting. Each time, you start from scratch.From her work Love Dog: http://mashatupitsyn.tumblr.com/post/46343468970/a-note-on-syntax
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
if "the universe is what it's supposed to be" is essentially correct (and i agree that it is), then "young-girl" is a dumb framing.
("young girl" becomes to jonny as "maria" was to the convent, but this is a minor and cheap observation. more importantly...)
it means there is no "solution" because there is no "problem". that's where jonny and seymour don't understand. jonny and seymour each lose--they are still in the matrix--they still think "young girl" is a "problem". c.f use of words like "whore" and "acid" and "toddler" and "lies"... a lot of talk about lies. and wailing about people not being able to see through lies.
that's why "the universe is what it's supposed to be" is such a service. lies and the effects of lies are a bit like the suffering that must be endured to appreciate life. they are "necessary suffering".
jonny and seymour are also still in the matrix in a different way--on the issue of "feelings". they think of "feelings" the same way that "atheists" think about "religion". that is, like atheists and religionists debating religion as if the question was whether an almighty being exists rather than asking the question of what it means to have a religion. in other words, fundamentally misconstrued/misinterpreted. more bluntly, jonny and seymour are responding to the cues of others who have misinterpreted the role of "emotion", and are thereby propagating the error.
it's not obvious because jonny and seymour are sorta correct in criticizing how broader society treats emotion (that is, correct that society is misunderstanding emotion), but they are clearly clueless about what emotions in fact signal (as a result their conclusions about emotion v reason are wrong). "feelings"/"emotion" are an alert mechanism. they're your first layer of bullshit detection--most importantly because they alert you to the bullshit you're telling yourself.
the thesis is wrong. but the antithesis is also wrong. so, the synthesis is wrong. still in the matrix.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 7:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the thesis is wrong. but the antithesis is also wrong. so, the synthesis is wrong. still in the matrix.
synthesis-antithesis- synthesis is classical Hegelian dialectic in the Dominating Discourse. The Dominating Discourse breaks up with Foucault's exposure of the Discourse of the classical Hegelian which you are still in: Matrix. When you use the Matrix, it comes from the film The Matrix which comes from Baudrillard's book Simulation and Simulacrum.
There is a new discourse emerging. Read Raw Theory of The Young-Girl by tiqqun as they are writing differently as are many many others who are thinking differently.
"the universe is what it's supposed to be"
Not sure where this came from but this statement assumes with the words "supposed to be" to be that it was designed to be a particular way. Are we to assume God designed it then? Or evolution? Or are you talking about the "world" we live in is supposed to be a particular way? It's a sloppy statement.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say things about feelings and emotions. They are just buzz words the way you use them, just sound bite jargon, just ready-mades. They mean nothing the way you use them. "Don't look for meaning where there is none." "About things which we cnanot speak we must remain silent." - Wittgenstein. Go read him. He will scrub the inside of your head clean.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 7:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
schizophrenics have trouble with emotion because they can't tell thoughts from feelings.
to not have feelings or be in a state where one is totallydisowning them or not having them is the abyss. everything lacks meaning. most logic is at least somewhat true. everythingbecomes sort of equal. it is scary if youreally know it. God, now I sound like seymour. but that is my experience.
your feelings tell you who you are much more so than anything else- likea north star. i would agree most people start losign touch with themearly, as serymour and jonny seem to sort of suggest. the only thing with feelings is, people get scared of raising emotional, overly emotional children and try to teach them early not to be that way, to have more self control but generally if you really want someone to truly get over it effectively, it is usually better to just let them havetheir emotions. people have a way of naturally growing some more self control in their own time in their ownway.
i don't know about atheists, other than that they have many traits of christians, such as missionary zeal, just minus the christianity. i am suspicious in general of things that leave no room for the mystical, the emotional, the unexplainable because they are magnets for nut jobs. tehchrisitan fundamentalists, they destroy subjective experience by makingeverything codified... i don't know about in the matrix or out of it, i never could getthrough that piece of Alone's writing. part of it is what it seems tobring out in other people, providing that out: "oh, it is the matrix." thatautomatically turns me off. i think some of it may be the writingthough. i think people are all to quick to grab onto anything that resolves them of personal responsibility and reinforces a sense of powerlessness. if the matrix means simply coming full circle with things so you aren't locked into one view, --- I think some people call that agency--- then I can half support it. Half. But that is totally random stuff based on me reading for like 12 seconds and not really getting it at all. i don't even know why I just grabbed onto that. or you could guess matrix might be a certain kind, another kind of limited thinking. I really have no clue.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 8:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
no. they are not writing or thinking differently. but what they are doing is scapegoating human modern 'sins'--- sins based on their particular treatment ofwhat they consider to be flawed--- obviously thrye must think it is superior to otehr definitions of sins I am sure---they are casting their sins onto the figure of a young girl, thereby rendering themselves, on some level, sinless (to themselves, for themselves and their own kind). it is as old asthe hills, although people used to use animals, not people, and were actually closer and more mindful of what they were doing or the implications ofwhatthey were doing than what these people are doing now. but original? hardly. plus they are as gross as tons of other French literature. do the French, teh majority of them, write outside of vulgarity, or is that a perrequisite for getting publichsed? also the immature. just curious.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 9:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"feelings"/"emotion" are an alert mechanism. they're your first layer of bullshit detection--most importantly because they alert you to the bullshit you're telling yourself.the thesis is wrong. but the antithesis is also wrong. so, the synthesis is wrong. still in the matrix.
People only talk bullshit when they're emotional. It's the passion that is the corruption. War is not possible without love (the desire to be exploitable & vulnerable in the absence of Self) and conformity (the desire to please others in the absence of Self). Violence is not possible without passion (irrational misperception of risk v reward). Manipulation & exploitation are not possible without children raised to seek external validation (the desire to be exploited in the absence of Self).
Slavery cannot exist without loyalty, honour, morality, fealty, trust, fatalism, apathy, routine, justice, law. All of these sentiments are constructed values and each and every one is provably insane. They're all religious sentiments traceable to the book they've printed 8 billion copies of to ensure our emotional education is corrupted. I read that book three times cover-to-cover by the age of 12 and from start to finish, it's propaganda drilling brainwashing & conditioning into the minds of anyone foolish enough to be reading it.
It is a book written to terrify. The protagonist 'hero' is so insane and blood-thirsty and emotionally corrupted, it's farcical. No one gives that book to a child to read without malicious intent. It's written to rock an impressionable mind off-balance. Made to be terrified and uncertain, that mind will be looking around instinctively to gauge what others are doing. Everything in the Bible is a corruption of what is logical and sane and humane. If you read that book, you won't be thinking in those terms by the end. That is the book's purpose. Terror. Uncertainty. Confusion.
It's emotional education designed to erode or simply obliterate Self. They want dependence. They're in the business of making slaves out of rebellious, stubborn, petulant, selfish & sane human minds. They have to snap the resistance mounted instinctively by living creatures subjected to the imposition of domination. Who are they? They are Self-less needy humans with an interest in leaching; for that they need to Confidence trick slaves to ignore their own Self-interest in order to focus on the perceived interests of the leech.
Mothers who don't want to work.
Middle men of religion who don't want to work.
Politicians who don't want to work.
Corporations who want to reduce the cost of labor.
Generals who don't want to work.
The control-obsessed. Protection racketeers. Power. All power is based on lies. Truth empowers Self. Buddha drilled the importance of Self non-stop.
"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed." - Buddha
Buddha empowered. He had no power. To apply power (use of force / violence / coercion to 'persuade'), you have to be a sociopath or empathy gets in the way. Humane humans do not Confidence trick other humans into giving away their power in an attempt to exploit them. You can only be betrayed by your own.
"Love is whatever you can still betray." - John le Carre
War and violence cannot exist without the emotional corruption of children. All the corrupted emotions can be traced direct to their source in the Yahweh Holy Books of Slavery. Yahweh Shibboleth = "He who musters armies" (literal translation). To a world preparing for Peace, God brought Love & War. The latter cannot exist without the former. You need to break a human mind and make a slave out of a child to kill their sense of Self, to make them Self-less, miserable and dependent; only then will they be desperate to please the sociopaths who need to leech off Humanity.
It's 100% a question of Self eroded by our corrupted emotional education. Mothers spend all their time raping the child of his or her capacity and intent to please themselves.
Misogyny destroyed the globe. The Young-Girl is a product of religion's unsustainable, diabolical, cannibalization of decency. The thesis is spot on. The matrix is emotional corruption that erodes Self.
The antithesis can work. If mothers broke the cycle and removed themselves from the equation, children would grow up pleasing themselves. If mothers took their filthy whore lies out of the equation, every child would grow up humane and sane.
The synthesis:
There would be no wars.
There would be no violence.
There would be no Protection rackets like religion or the state. There would be no needy, Maya illusory or otherwise manufactured by those who need to lean on Humanity because they cannot lean on themselves.
There would be no exploitation or manipulation possible because everyone would be validating themselves internally and focused on creating optimal conditions for happiness.
Every misery in this world is the product of Self-less insanity. If you are not Selfish, you will not be sane and you will never be humane. This is why mothers, religion and the state all drill [suffering to please creeps] as the ideal. War & violence aren't Selfish pursuits. They're Self-less.
Only the Self-less can be manipulated into dying for love or fear of being thought to be [insert manipulable religious corrupted emotional smear here].
From "Raw Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl":
It's not the theory of the Young-Girl that is the product of misogyny, but the Young-Girl herself.When fools protest against the evidence that "the world isn't a commodity" and by the way that they aren't either, they're feigning a virginity that only justifies their powerlessness. We want none of that virginity nor of that powerlessness.
We propose a different emotional education.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 10:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
are you really that unaware of yourselves? take a real look at your arguments. on the face of them, young girl/toddler/whoremother is the thesis, anti-young-girl is the antithesis, and your conclusions are your syntheses.
take a good look, dummy. that's not me engaging in the hegelian dialectic. it's you.
whatever new discourse exists, you're not a part of it.
that's what's fucking hilarious about you and jonny and abbey. you read and regurgitate. at best, you pattern recognize. but in no case do you philosophize. what you dolts do cannot properly be considered thought. you're robots.
you are so dumb that you don't even realize that tlp's criticisms of society (more specifically, his criticisms of society's critics) are criticisms of you. tlp is not in agreement with you. tlp proselytizes exactly the opposite. he doesn't say that you can survive on your own. that's the kind of magical thinking that happens at anarcholibertarian/radfem sites where you can "respect" each other in a "safe space" and if you assume a can opener, you can open that can of beans on a deserted isle. that's the kind of magical thinking that runs rife through the "young girl" essays. it's the kind of magical thinking that thinks the occupy movement is still relevant. where? it was a brand. a fad. it's done. no one is listening. i don't. why should i? it doesn't do anything.
seriously, why the fuck do you think he brings up glengarry glen ross? his point is that there's a real fucking world out there, and that world rips the heads off of people who don't get the truth and pisses down their throats. in that world, results matter. so, where are your results? what do you have to show for it? how many deals have you closed?
here's the test, genius: if your truth is true, then it has to last. the universe (which is everything outside of your head--and unobviously, much of what's inside of it) is the arbiter. it decides what lives and dies.
if your truth produces no children, if your truth garners no disciples, if your truth dies with you, then you better have a good fucking explanation as to why it's nevertheless "truth". because the likelier explanation for its death is that your "truth" was merely false. it was useless. it was irrelevant.
and if it's merely false, then you have some explaining to do as to why you insist it's "truth". because insisting that falsity is truth is not "narcissism". it's insanity.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 10:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you open with this line "People only talk bullshit when they're emotional", and that's how i know you're illiterate.
you look at how people react to their emotions (thesis), and you think the emotion is the problem (antithesis). get rid of religion (synthesis).
but the emotion isn't the problem. it's just a signal. it's a given. it's human. it can't be removed.
the problem is how people interpret their emotions, how they interpret the signals.
since you're illiterate, here's a gift. you won't need to read. just listen. unless you're deaf, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AESMraB4qt4&list=PLHqzWkWWO088uAqdsiC83qwldKsWKt7A9
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 11:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are terribly confused about all this. It is your language syntax that is confusing you. You can't speak clearly so you can't write clearly and you can't think clearly. The Young-Girl concept is not necessarily a young girl. Young-Girl is not gendered and is not aged. You are thinking concretely and the term Young-Girl is not meant that way. You will have to wade throu tiqqun to get it.It is not easy and requires a great deal of background study to even know what they are writing about. Your psychology doctor at Toronto is typical of most psychologists. That is, they do not know very much. Their training is not very rigorous. To start bringing in the Bible is not a good idea.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 11:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Puppyland you just don't know enough to be writing the way you are. Your grasp of psychoanalysis is nill and you haven't even begun with Lacan. You need to study some more if you are going to try to engage on an intellectual basis. At least with me. Jonny is coming from a past experience not from books and you keep responding to the content of his replies, not the intent of his replies. Try focusing on intent.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 11:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not talking about truth. Where did you gt that false idea?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2013 11:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you open with this line "People only talk bullshit when they're emotional", and that's how i know you're illiterate.
Puppy read this sentence of yours. It doesn't mean anything. It's like the purple trees waving furiously in the logic example.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 1:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you really think the politicians are emotional when they are talking bullshit? Bullshit is a way of life.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 8:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
no, i'm not confused about it. i understand young-girl is a concept. i'm not thinking of it concretely. it's a social critique. you think it's original, but that's because you're uneducated. you think i don't understand, but that's because you're illiterate. you overestimate your abilities, and the result is evident. (it causes you to believe you have special knowledge and insight that others don't have.) but young-girl is only a pretender to the throne of confucius. the difference is that one has been tested by time. the other is an affectation. think about it. the phrase "young-girl", as used, is not different from the word "evil".
intent is irrelevant. trying to make it relevant is a fraud. giving it priority is the lie you tell to evade judgment, so that you can tell yourself the content isn't important. but the content is highly relevant. the judgment of content is what tests the validity of the concept.
i didn't say you were talking "about" truth. rather, meta, you are presenting what you believe to be true. and you are wrong in your belief. belief in falsehoods in the face of truth is insanity.
your illiteracy shows in your last two responses. deafness, too. when i say emotion is a signal, it's not "the emotions of others are a signal for you", rather, it's "your own emotions are a signal to you". as i say, you misunderstand "emotion" in the way that atheists misunderstand "religion". atheists think religion is about the supernatural. so they take their stance against religion on anti-supernatural grounds. but religion is not about the supernatural, their anti-supernatural stance is irrelevant.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 9:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What I mean by "the universe is what it's supposed to be" is more that it exists as it is, it cannot be other than it is. TAO IS, that's kinda the point, and it's true of everything. It just simply IS, and there's nothing wrong with something that has its true nature. What happens is that we tend to put cultural frames around things (the Discordians call them grids, but given how a lot of people here are into Facaultian Grids, I think that name would be confusing), and use our cultural frames to decide how things "should be". It's not useful, and it leads to a lot of problems because instead of simply observing, you say "I think X should work like Y" when X is X is X = in other words it has that nature and cannot have another nature. You cannot get anywhere by pretending Gravity is not what it is, or that vinegar is not what it is. Gravity makes things fall -- it's "supposed to" by the nature of what gravity is. I don't think it's stupid, it's how its supposed to be.
I suppose I'm also being somewhat inaccruate in suggesting a cure for "young-girlism" -- but I would say that learning to control your emotions and to see the universe as it really is would somewhat mitigate it in yourself. I don't want to be young-girl, I want to be me. And for me, that's a problem to be dealt with perhaps not "solved" -- bad choice of words -- but at the same time I want to be me, the real me, the one that the universe created, I should have the Dovahkiin-nature as much as gravity has the Gravity-nature, at least in the ideal sense. Every person alive has that sort of nature, their natural nature, the one that existed before the culture taught them to be what they became instead.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 11:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
we're actually in agreement (at least through your first paragraph). i think my reply to you (re: young-girl not a problem) was just a minor quibble.
but we could go a bit further though in avoiding the kind of cartesian dissection of the universe that kills the subject. i.e., think of the "cultural frames" themselves as an aspect of the universe. that is, "cultural frames" are a part of being human. necessarily because being human means being a social creature means society means culture means cultural frames means moral/ethical precepts, in a word, "shoulds" (or in two words, "should nots").
where people often go awry (though this is certainly not the only place they get it wrong) is thinking or misunderstanding the one guiding principle of life: survival (a/k/a perpetuation/ propagation/ continuation/ other formulations).
when you think about it, every successful morality/ethics is geared towards survival. success not because you survives--rather, success = survival. (e.g., jonny suggests above that the point of anything/everything is "no war, no violence, blah blah blah", but that's actually misconceived. those are values extrapolated from long-standing and pervasive cultural frames. not entirely wrong, not nonsensical, but failing to understand that "no war" isn't valuable/relevant as an end. it's valuable/relevant as a means--to survival. mundane, common sensical, banal, but the reasoning is simple: the fewer people you piss off, the fewer people are likely to kill you. so dull and unsexy as to be self-evident. but it doesn't thereby follow that "no war" always leads to survival. nor does it follow that "war" does not also lead to survival. "no war" and "war" are contextually/situationally legitimate. that's why "war" persists.)
so all of this may seem wildly off-topic, but it's groundwork for understanding where and why "young-girl" fails (or doesn't) and for understanding what it means to be the "true you".
the proper conclusion is that there is nothing inherently wrong with being "young-girl". the question is empirical. if "young-girl" confers a survival advantage, meaning it works, as evidenced by the fact that its adopter persists, that its conception persists, then it's perfectly legitimate, in the metaphorical eyes of the universe. the universe decides what lives and dies.
the question for you, for the true you, is whether "young-girl" will, in fact, work or fail, as evidenced by persistent existence. if "true you" is not "young girl", then there's a contest. the facts of the universe determine whether "you" live or die.
in other words, your legitimacy depends on whether you understand what the universe/reality demands, whether you heed (and flourish) or disregard (and perish). this is really the lesson of the bible (allegorical, cause and effect--impermanence of moral tenets--fitness--evolutionary principles--surprising?)
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 11:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
survival fails to give quality of life. survival is merly survival, simply existing does not make people feel alive. you need inspiration for that, healthy drive, a lust for experience.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 11:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Puppylander, I like that video, and i hardly like *anything* very much. Also, I like your name. Most cool names are really stupid. But I like 'Puppylander.'
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 11:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(my) idiosyncratic use of the word.
still, first, you don't get a quality life if you're dead. so priority goes to survival.
second, there's a sliding scale. if your morality/ethics just barely get it right, you don't die. if your morality/ethics get it really right, you not only survive, but you thrive. quality of life is your reward.
but these are just general principles. like f=ma doesn't actually tell you how to build an aircraft.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 11:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i would have spent more time looking for the lectures in unfragmented pieces, but it was getting late.
he's interesting because while he self-avows as a religionist, when you distill his arguments, you find that he has essentially bridged religion and science. (not religion in the bible-thumping sense, which is more a perverse interpretation, but rather, the bible itself.) if not bridged, then left a gap narrow enough to leap across safely.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 12:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
so the thing about emotions is subjective utility. they are useful to you personally. and it's because they're useful to you personally that they are objectively useful.
as i say, they are an alert mechanism.
so, typically, you're not particularly aware of when you're feeling good. you'll notice it if you're paying attention to it, but there's no intense emotion/ sensation. it's not necessary. everything checks out. your beliefs and your observations and the reality that presents itself to you are all corresponding, all in corroboration, all consistent.
but when you feel bad, that's a signal. it means that your beliefs/expectations are not in line with your observations/experiences. either your beliefs&expectations are wrong&unreasonable or your observations are incorrect. the emotion/bad feeling doesn't tell you what's wrong, just that something's wrong.
the challenge is not suppression of emotion. you shouldn't be trying to suppress the signal. the challenge is to recognize/ interpret the signal properly, so that you can step back and adjust (either your beliefs/ expectations or reality) to bring things back into conformity.
this is tlp/alone's observation when he says "the problem is you". he's asserting that when people spend an *inordinate* amount of time/ effort trying to shape reality to their beliefs (and especially when they are trying to change an unchangeable reality), they are trying to avoid reforming their beliefs. they are avoiding admitting error. because: no error = no need to reform yourself.
jonny and seymour talk about emotion as if it were some kind of evil that needs to be stomped out. it's not. it's just a tool, an indicator, like the check engine light on your car. when i say it's not evil, it doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to "validate" someone's feelings/emotions. (i don't even know what "validate" means.)
rather, what it means is that someone who is feeling bad has suffered a disruption between their beliefs/expectations and reality. (you can take it from there what you think ought to be done. help them reform their ideas about the world, or help them reform the world. with the usual caveats--if you choose/decide correctly, you or they or everyone will be better off--if you choose/decide incorrectly, you or they or everyone will be worse off. that's the implicit inevitable. resolution is not easy. it's not obvious. there is no one answer for every case. it's situational/contextual/individual. just general principles here. as i said, f=ma doesn't tell you how to build an aircraft.)
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 2:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, to a point, but they can also easily mislead you. If your "frame" has taught you to think "black guy = criminal", then seeing a black guy following you will make you feel fear. There's nothing unnatural about the fear, but it may not line up with reality. The guy might be a doctor. If you feel something, you feel it, and yes you should stop and look, but letting fear run you doesn't help.
There are other times that feelings don't help. Like people who lose everything in a natural disaster. Natural disasters happen, they're natural, they happen because of physics. But people feel like they have been wronged when that disaster strikes, as though some entity chose them out of thousands of others to knock their house down and destroy their stuff. That's not what happened. Your house was simply where the storm went. There is nothing morally evil about the weather. It's just weather. And at any rate, crying over the loss does nothing about the problem.
The one that I think TLP especially would like is the notion of getting mad at other people for not being what they want them to be. You wanted your friend to be there for you, he wasn't. You wanted to be asked to the dance and weren't. You wanted your boss to like your work, he didn't. Or any of the moral panics about what other people are doing in private. It's simply that those people have their own natures. The guy that you wanted to ask you out, well, he's not into blondes. Or your boss didn't like what you did because he had a different idea. Or your best friend didn't want to hang out because he was really tired. Feeling the hurt is natural, but if you're dwelling on it, it's because you pretty much expect them to be something other than they are. It's one thing to say "you hurt my feelings" or "I feel pain", that's part of your nature as a human. It's another when you take ownership of them as if they didn't have their own lives that you're a bit player in. That's normal, it's normal for them to act like themselves.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 2:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i am not a big rationalist person and i find Alone's remarks to be useful in a different way than you. I think being overly confident you know exactlywhatsomeonemeansand where they arecoming from with absolute precision is generally a mistake, for one thing because people themselves don't even always know with absolute clarity where they themselves are coming from, which is a necessary condition of being human and alive. BUT. You view of things and most people when they are being overly rational's view of things tend to be hugelyself limiting. All of it. Not particular lines of thought. Allof it.
But to play the game for a second, think of it this way. For growth and new things to emerge, new ideas for example, there has to be new information to combine with what already exists, or the things that exist have to be combined in a new way. To get that growth, you take a risk, - the metaphor is say playing around with death a little. No risk, no new info. No growth. Nothing learned or gained. which is one explanation of why the lust for experience is generally moreimportant than the will to survive. not that I can't go into exceptions, not that it is a perfect line of logic- no ;logic ever is, really. I always thought it was whatever tickled your insides, sort of like a happy version of the Cartesian bell.
SB should write something about what she wrote about Braudrillard- his fans being 'faithful and irreverent.' I am interested in how one can be both. I can see how in relationships one thing that allows you to be irreverent without damaging things is that there is some kind of fundamental loyalty maybe. But taking those two things and elaborating on them would probably be a good, very good paper.
and survival has nothing to do with morality. one of the problems that may be happening inthe world right now is that survival may be becoming, of necessity, incresingly immoral. intrinsically. this is a huge problem, one that might destroy everything- and i say this as someone who generally is against bemoaning how awful things are nowadays, on religious grounds. but still.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 2:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
asking someone to forget wanting others to see things their way, to feel things their way is abuse. Most people with real problems are people --- are not the people who feel excessively, who want to be empathized with exzcessively. I know people have that idea in their heads but it isn't true. also, I would like to point oput, empathy is free. it is not like these theoretical people are asking for a pony or a nuclear bomb or some crazy thing. just empathy. just feeling.
I think it is just that people get hurt when they are children by everyone asking them not to be children and they want to identify with whoever hurt them and survive and npot be a victim and so they internalize what they were told a certain way and inflict it on their children and it just goes on and on. or at least that is basically alice miller's take. I don't thinkk it accounts for everything, but I think it is useful to remember.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 2:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i see your examples, and we're not disagreeing. (i think you've gone a little off-topic, but no biggie.)
i agree that wallowing (and any wallowing, by definition, is too much wallowing) is not a correct response to an experienced emotion. (it's not the only incorrect response--there are others.)
what i'm saying, simply, is that an emotion-charged state-of-being demands reconciliation (by the person experiencing the emotion). the failure to correctly reconcile beliefs/expectations/perceptions with reality will diminish you, perhaps destroy you.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 2:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
no, I can ssure you, we are, in fact, thoroughly disagreeing. But please, give me many good examples of how people havebeenfelled by their excessive emotion that is out of step with objective reality. Please.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 2:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
oh. And Puppylander, just so we can be sure that excesive emotionality is in fact the culprit, and not something elsethat you're not seeing, let's keep the examples to you, and you only.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 3:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Seymourblogger: Do you really think the politicians are emotional when they are talking bullshit? Bullshit is a way of life.
Yes I do. They will appear ice-cool in the same way I appeared apathetic, bored, half-asleep, disinterested on poker tables when the truth was my mind was racing faster than most people can comprehend. People present themselves not as they are but as they wish to be perceived. I'd process the patterns, betting lines and tendencies to detect exploitability, I would pounce when the %s justified the play. I'd present myself the way I was presenting myself all the time; which was a lie no matter how I felt.
Presentation, by definition, is lying. So are emotional feelings. If you are emotionally needy, it's because you're the bastard son of a lying whore. Love is not sane. Your needy dependence was manufactured.
Love is a corruption of the emotional education of children. Children don't need to be made to feel grateful to lying dependent whores who need to survive because they've been corrupted into needy, entitled sociopaths. Children don't need their filthy lies (they're for the child's sake, of course! And men are lied to for their sake, of course!)
Girls are all about equality and fairness. Uh huh. Yes, that's been my experience as well.
Lying is our way of life. It is not The Way to live.
"We propose a different emotional education."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 3:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Puppylander: "you open with this line "People only talk bullshit when they're emotional", and that's how i know you're illiterate."
Truth is the default. Truth is real. "Pigs cannot fly." It requires no emotion because you need no motive for default actions. Unemotional people have no motive to lie. You must be motivated to deceive.
Politicians are driven by emotion; in fear, they drive to compete and win. They're driven by the same corrupted emotions that drive all Winners to win. Winners are powered by pain. Only those who have competed at an elite level [of anything] will understand the torture that fuels their sacrifice. They sacrifice their lives to win what is a lie.
The fear is indescribable. I couldn't sleep. I had to drive forward. "How could I sleep when my competitors were improving?" That's a Winning attitude. Losers sleep. Winners suffer. Welcome to the Reality that isn't what it should be. Mothers are lying to children. Everyone is lying to everyone but mothers are responsible. Mothers invent lying for every child.
"The child's discovery that he or she can lie successfully is a major milestone in psychological development." - Lies! Lies!! Lies!!! The Psychology of Deceit. - Charles V. Ford
Successful lies. Only narcissists and sociopaths can perceive lying in such a uniquely insane fashion. You cannot advantage by taking advantage of yourself. No one is happy because no one is alive. You cannot live in a world of needy lies.
Everyone is fighting to survive.
We have no threats. We're on top of the food chain. We live in a world of sobering abundance and plenty. We destroy more food than it would take to feed the globe purely to manipulate prices. We pollute everything. Kill children with abandon. Melt the polar ice cap which is going to kill billions when Greenland melts (as it now has to, on account of our melting the polar ice cap?) and water levels rise by 6-7 meters. This has all been achieved. Nothing can save them now. They don't even realise you've killed them. Your emotional education was corrupted. You have contributed to the genocide of billions. Congratulations. Give your mother a kiss. "Who's a Good BOY."
You need a motive to lie, to deceive, to corrupt, to confuse, to hide, to distract and/or to manipulate perception. You do not need a motive to be real because we do not live in Young-Girl's fantasy. We live in Reality. "Do pigs fly?" You need a motive to claim they do and no motive to do otherwise. Truth is the default. "Pigs cannot fly." Simple. Emotionless. Only lying has ever required motive.
Why do you wear clothes?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 3:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think it is just that people get hurt when they are children by everyone asking them not to be children and they want to identify with whoever hurt them and survive and not be a victim
Yes! This is how love 'works'. First blood let. When you've been harmed by love, logic goes out the window. I once dumped a girl I was half-in-love with when she 'cheated' (clearly, I had no Self and only those without Self ever get emotional about considerations of exclusivity) but she had a mind so cunning...
She made me fall in love with her and take her back by making me believe she was HIV+. As soon as the battery of test results came through, I should have dumped her because she did not have any STDs at all. It was just what she needed to do for love. When the results came through, I was horrified but somehow understanding. So I didn't really have a choice. I was in love. That was a mistake but in hindsight, the mistake was made on 9/11. That's when I forgot to fear everything but fear; but this world is so blinded...it's positively terrifying.
And I see Rhianna is back with Chris Brown.
_____________________________
Puppylander's blindness is infuriating.
"Have you eyes, but cannot see."
- Tiresias to Oedipus, who was blinded to truth by his corrupted emotions.
nb. Tiresias, as it happens, was blinded for telling the truth to Zeus about Hera's lies about women and sex. Women enjoy sex something like 10 x the biological capacity of men. This is just a mundane fact of life. Try looking for verification of this biological fact. Polite Societies were constructed by mothers who only fear what is true and real.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i'll disagree with you only as to survival/morality.
if you look at an individual only, it's not obvious that morality is about survival at all. but that misunderstands the nature of morality (actually it misunderstands the nature of the universe).
think about it. morality doesn't confer immortality. all individuals die eventually.
no, morality is about survival of the society. its essence is a numbers game.
think very broadly about morality/ethics for a moment. every moral decision boils down to "should i or should i not _______?" every single one.
what's as interesting is that every "should i or should i not ______?" is a moral question. (not obvious, huh? obvious from the serious/famous ones like: "should i or should i not kill that man?" but let's think about something pesky... like "should i or should i not eat shellfish?" maybe doesn't sound like a moral decision, and yet, there's a biblical command not to eat shellfish.)
anyway... since you don't know to 100% certainty whether doing ______ is going to pay off or not, it's a bet. sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
so now, pick a moral tenet. any moral tenet will do. the moral tenet answers the question for you. thou shalt not _____.
now, suppose the moral tenet pays off, maybe not every time, but more often than not. you survive. you thrive. anyone who also follows that moral tenet gets a pay off, not every time, but more often than not.
contrast with a moral tenet that doesn't pay off (and in fact hurts you), maybe not every time, but more often than not. anyone who also follows that moral tenet gets hurt (maybe even dies), not everyone, not every time, but more often than not.
now run two societies side by side. one with moral tenets that pay off. the other with moral tenets that don't pay off. run the experiment 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years.
10000 years have passed, are both societies still standing? the society that gets it wrong dies. definitionally, it is a society whose morals are not up to the task. their morals don't work. their morals are... immoral.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Survival is in the Order of Production. Living is in the Symbolic Order. One of the themes of DeLillo's Cosmopolis. Cahallenge, risk,seduction, reversibility versus security, porn, irreversibility.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i don't see it. you say that people dwell on their emotions, and you say that's not good.
i agree. so what are we disagreeing about? (besides disagreeing about disagreeing.) or are you misunderstanding me?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the moment you cast yourself in (meta) heroic roles (tiresias), you should be suspicious (of yourself).
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Perhaps I should have said the bullshit that has crystallized into ready - mades, into sound bites that pour our of their mouths like breath. They speak in Discourse that has no meaning.I could not even respond to Hillary in 08 because that's the way I heard her. I think she meant what she said, but how can I ever know in Simulated Reality. There is only credibility in it. And anything that sounds like same - old, same-old bullshit, is tired. All the emotion is played out of it. That's what I was meaning.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And yes you are writing about the "mask" as lie, the mask that dissembles. Only there are those that know they are wearing one and those who have forgotten they have it on, and then have forgotten they have forgotten. Because of your unique early childhood you can't forget. It meant your life at one time so you didn't dare forget. I don't mean all of the children you were with, just you and maybe some others. IDK.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I never understand why people who do not use teh Bible in the way it is intended continue to evoke it as an example ofmorality when obviously they themselves dopn't consider it a moral document. It is so weird.
Morality is more to me about the survival of the spirit. and this is sad to say, but the soul as well- actually, more so the soul. Perhaqps in order to see this one must either have a transformative experience or else dilligently practice a system that promises enlightenment. I guess for normal people... I tend to think that not practicing will result in no results, because --- I am thinking of the Bible--- it is like a system and if you practice it, it delivers. But what happens is, you don't work on it. It works on you. which brings us right back to experience, risks, versus just doing what we can readily understand leads to survival. since I am getting preachy, I will just add that the Bible isn't Western like people think. Not if you doit right. It is universal and it has a lot in common with Eastern stuff. I think that is just a myth perpetuated by people who want to feel special and superior with theirEastern stuff. Which might not be the best way to practice or begin any spiritual task. So that is ironic.
Anyway- I consider morality to be always fundamentally about the individual. You don't find salvation based on other people, you mostly in the end are accoutnable for yourself, save yourself or die. I think an exception is what happens if you get married, maybe. Because then you are two halves of one soul. also what intrinsically happens if that things get divvied up in terms of ... it's like a lolt of willpower shifting around and doing things that involve a certain amount of merging selves. the sort of thing jonny hates. it's like, this is a rotten example, I used to let mymother, a good democrat, tell me how to vote. I can hear people having cows about that in my head, but I wasn't about to pay the ampount of attention it would take to every single measure that she was. Sometimes I'd skim stuff and maybe disagree ona couple things. But basically I tyrusted her- she is a democrat and not a feaky progressive one, so i was good. and so there are people in your life that are closer or further away with trust. I amnot sure... I think in some ways it may be a silly supposaition at all to expect a morality to be applied to society except in some rudimentary way. that sounds, to me, kind of delusional itself. it is also a magnet for nut jobs who want to whine about hoiw wrong it all is whilethey sitthere and do nothing but whine- but refuse to see themselves as a problem/.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
maybe the thing is to expect society not to be immoral, as opposed to expecting it to be moral, which might be expecting too much of society and even of morality.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
because "the bible" is also a brand name.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The universe just is is straight out of Ayn Rand. Woefully misleading. The "truth" does not exist in Simulated Reality nor when it is totalized into Virtual Reality. There it is only credibility. No truth, no false.
Young-Girl IS the reality in Simulated Reality. That's where we are. Deal with it.
There is no "true self." "I am multitudes," says Walt Whitman. We all are. Are you the self you were 20 years ago? I hope not. "I write to become other than I am," said Foucault. Your "true self" is a ready-made, sound bite of a conceptual fraud. "Take a hammer to a concept," says Nietzsche. When you do then you do a genealogy on it and see what it means.
"To thine own self be true, thou cannot then be false to any man,' said Shakespeare. So what did he mean? that your own true self was carved i stone for all eons of time? Of did he mean at that moment in time because maybe that's the only moment you ever have to be true to yourself. And being true to yourself 30 years ago is very different from being true to yourself today. At least I hope so.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
also, understandingthe Bible as a book fundamentally to instruct in morality is really limited. You can see it on that level, but there are more important levels; to see life or spirituality as primarily 'about' right and wrong is a dismal place to live; if that is how one is fundamntally supposed to be, i can't see why jesus wouldbother to forgiuve anybody's sins. the Bible is about, more importantly, becoming who you are. I realize that is highly personaland idiosyncratic. But for me, this is true.
expecting society to be responsible for being moral... a person who would do that is probably having a superficial understanding of what is moral.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As to Tiresias and "truth telling" this is what Foucault was working on at the end of his life. One of his last pieces of writing was a little book named "FEARLESS SPEECH" (also in PDF ) in which he is doing a genealogy of parrhesis which is the Greek term for it. As Foucault has said it is the cornerstone of the Western world, all our freedoms are based on it. But what is it actually? And he goes on to do the genealogy of it beginning with Greece where it first appeared. Parrhesia is coupled with power, speaking truth to power, speaking truth when your life is at stake. He gives a famous example of Alexander hearing it and how it is done to him. He discusses the Sphinx, Tiresias etc. Anyone who has ever been in that situation where saying what you know you want and ought to say is probably going to result in dire consequences for yourself. JFK in his Profiles in Courage takes the example of Daniel Webster speaking to preserve the Union before even abolishing slavery and Clay offers the Missouri Compromise of 1850. My present day favorite example is Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents's dinner where he speaks truth to power to Bush II and all the "journalists" in DC at that dinner. http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/2011/08/colbert-our-voltaire-foucault-and.html Stephen Colbert, our Voltaire. I hope all of you were awake at that moment. It was a great one. And from then on the paper media stopped being so afraid of Bush II.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Baudrillard - "Children are children but they do not believe they are children so they play a double game."
Since becoming a nold lady I have employed the advantages of that. You are old but you do not believe you are old, so you play a double game.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
his point is that there's a real fucking world out there, and that world rips the heads off of people who don't get the truth and pisses down their throats. in that world, results matter. so, where are your results? what do you have to show for it? how many deals have you closed?
You're so corrupted, it's unfathomable. This world measures success in horrific terms. You can kill people but as long as you terrify cretins, the little vermin will rush to your side and act against their own best interests because of love. How do you think tyrants get power? It's given to them by little terrified rats who think they're being crafty by snuggling close to terror. They're on the side of evil and they know it.
Together, they will destroy you! hahah.
They just get raped and disposed of like the worthless little vermin they are. Or they are used to breed children to donate to the Worthy Cause.
here's the test, genius: if your truth is true, then it has to last. the universe (which is everything outside of your head--and unobviously, much of what's inside of it) is the arbiter. it decides what lives and dies.
Truth is not measured in those terms. Your insanity is destroying the world. Truth is sustainable. Your needy insanity has already destroyed everything; we're just counting out time because yall can't do game theory. Truth will remain true long after religious-induced M.A.D. wipes out this species. You're locked into "might is right" insanity. You're contradicting yourself all over the place. That's insane.
There is a real fucking world out there, and that world rips the heads off of people who don't get the truth and pisses down their throats. in that world, results do not matter. I have already posted my results which do not matter. But you're such a narcissist, you can demand "pics" and then when they're supplied you don't even look at them. Scroll up, you fool. I supplied verification when it was requested, even though it's degrading. Only the corrupted have motive to deceive.
Power defeats those who empower others because this world is as insane as you are. Peace is sustainable. Power destroys what it has not created or produced. Christians have leeched their way across the world with their armies but that's because they send children to die for the Cause. Lies lies and love. Buddha had no power. He had no armies. He had no one willing to die for him because he spoke Truth. Christians have lots of power. They lie to children. They make up truth as they go along, like every needy sociopath including me (but I had no malice, I was merely mimicking what I knew). I hurt a lot of people. I would have been considered very sane by your definition. I was suicidal. It's all lies.
Power is the corruption. It's not sane. It's needy and it has destroyed the globe and worse-than-killed 100 billion already. No one survives so the only thing to do is live a Selfish, inclusive, happy life. Your best interests are not served by taking 'advantage' of religious disparities of size, strength, cunning, etc. It's a trap to create needy misery that preys on its own. No one can live in a world of vermin leeches. It's a struggle just to survive. 20,000 toddlers under five fail that struggle every single day whilst mothers in the West (who are killing those toddlers) celebrate charitable efforts which propagate leeching dependence.
No one has lived in this world since Yahweh screamed his needy lies. They just survived lives of misery and pain, which their memories wiped (it's called denying your reality, like the way you're denying the truth about the reality of your mother and young girls who are being sprayed with religion's misogynistic acid - the acid isn't sprayed to enforce truth. Human DNA is true.)
That's why religion needs the acid. What is natural doesn't require acid to modify behaviour. It doesn't require little girls to die at the hands of their mother. It lives and lets live. Only lies kill. That's how sociopaths get power. Power is not what defines truth, you imbecile. Your capacity to kill everyone doesn't make your belief system true. It just makes you a filthy leech that gives thanks on Thanksgiving to the needy construct of a sociopath who gave leeches a pretext to kill in order to take what was not theirs. "Women children who had not lain with a man." All who had lain with a man were worthless to the religious leeches; who also killed all the little boys that had been taken captive before killing those responsible for not killing the little boys when their fathers were murdered. Not one sociopath died in that battle. They gave thanks to the Lord for that 'miracle'. The fathers of Midian were too sane to fight.
Read Numbers 31 and fuck off with your "might is right" bullshit. Imbecile. Might is never right. It wouldn't need might if it were. It would simply make the logical case to get people to act in their own self-interest. What is right is what empowers. You're wrong about everything.
if your truth produces no children, if your truth garners no disciples, if your truth dies with you, then you better have a good fucking explanation as to why it's nevertheless "truth". because the likelier explanation for its death is that your "truth" was merely false. it was useless. it was irrelevant.
Women can breed for sane reasons. Chimps manage to do it fine. Breeding children when you cannot take care of yourself is insanity. No animal species is insane. Only humans are inhumane. Only humans prey on Their Own.
Power has corrupted the natural order. The needy insanity is unsustainable. When the non-renewable resources mandate the rationalisation of M.A.D. you will all be destroyed. Because power is insane, by definition. It uses force and violence to 'persuade'. I won't gloat when the proof of what I'm saying is shown to be true. I'll have mushroom clouds of my own to contend with.
because insisting that falsity is truth is not "narcissism". it's insanity.
No shit. Yours is becoming intolerable.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes puppyland's blindness is infuriating. But it really isn't his. It is the Discourse he is in listening to that psychologist in Toronto and drinking his cool aid. If one replies to PL content a swamp of interpretation sucks at you and you can't get out because there is quicksand underneath the muck. The intent of PL's replies is clear. Respond to that. PL is i the Dominating Discourse. The reason Foucault named it that is because it has Domination as its goal. "That gray monotonous prose" he says.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do a genealogy of morality or moral as you say. Normal? Stick your head in Foucault.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 4:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Or do children invent lying to escape the mother. Authority figures make one lie. Which means, I think, that when you lie you are saying I don't love you or I don't love you anymore. In psychoanalytic training one student and I had a long discussion of this and got back to Huckleberry Finn and lying as defense. The mother lies but does not see or hear or consider herself lying. she has forgotten and then forgotten that she has forgotten to use R.D. Laing's considerable knowledge of logic applied to pathology. Learning to lie is important. Like learning to lie at the Poker Table with your face and your body, your breathing, your movements. This is lying consciously and you lie to the table because you love no one there.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 5:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
that is what I like about this blog. It reminds me of who I am. I'm like, "oh yeah." Many or most things do not work on that level for me. To the contrary.
As far asc hildren not believing they are children.. I kind of suspect that we all operate on multi[ple levels. Needing things to be extremely rigid and structured can mean you're a child, i suppose, maybe, in some ways. But i always thought of it as a sign of pathology. Maybe a sing everybody has potentially, but a sign nonetheless. Because you can't tolerate instability. It's a weakness. But the more this conversation goes on tehmore i am struck, right now, that SB sees things asSB, jonny as Jonny, Puppylander asPuppylander, me as me, strikingly so. How did Foucault resolve his thing about S and m with his apparent obsession with society wanting to control him? I mean- was it ever addressed? Curious. It seems kind of obvious. I mean an obvious thing to address. But I suppose people who want to talk about society probably intrinsically do not want to talk about the personal, maybe.
and as far as results mattering. I worked ... teh job I worked at most was in hospitals. the big thing is showing results, always, good outcomes, and good customer care. The more they breahed down our throats and tried to quantify and codify it, the more certain soft skills suffered. there is a place for results. but it can't be the main thing, to get results, i don't think. and before someone says, that is soft skills jobs, all jobs are soft skills jobs, just like all jobs are hard skills jobs. I do worry what will happen when results that can be gathered statistically become too important. that seems to be to be potentially more of a place where the world can more readily, to quote, tear off a person's head and piss down their thraot- a horrible, horrible expression- but I had touse it.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 5:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
One of the first things you learn as a therapist is to distinguish between the "intent" of the question and the "content" of the question. Usually the content is a mask obscuring the intent. The person in the audience who asks the speaker a question not to get information but to "attack" the speaker in a socially accepted way.To call someone illiterate because they say what you don't agree with is what educationally illiterate people do. So you are just projecting on me what is true about you.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 5:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
lying is important to children and adultsbecause it contains aspects of a truth that may be inexpressable in its totality. perhaps one could say that thetruth is inexpressible in its totality--- which sounds like wittgenstein to me. children and adults also have to format the truth theyh are expressing to their audience, what their audience canhear. this is unbelievably hard. i think that is why good shrinks get paid well. most shrinks asfaras i can tell do not have a lot of finesses with this and probably don't even try. I wish I were better at this skill, I think that would be fun.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 5:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Puppylander's blindness is infuriating. But puppylander is Young-Girl. PL has said nothing but cliches strung together from a Young-Girl psychologist from Toronto speaking on youtube. Young-Girl is the inauthentic self but manufactured to be so. All Young-Girl's reality is Simulation. Young-Girl does not know she/he is Young-Girl. This would be asking to much. How do you fug? Do you learn from porno how to do it? Do you think of it as an individual language of intimacy that both of you learn from each other? Are you tekkie about fugging? This is the way you stimulate the clit andif you don't, Young-Girl is not going to like the way you do it?
Rihanna comes from the Caribbean. Her interfaces with sex are different from Young-Girl in the US but she is also Young-Girl. Do you see Young-Girl in yourself? Which part? Does it hurt to look at those parts?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 5:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
yeah, it is not very nice to call someone illiterate I guess, although it is such a small insignificant insult, so baseless, so simple, it is like calling someone a jerk. You know: you're a jerk! and your response is, oh, yeah, that really smarts. because of course it does not. but you know, I think there is this huge myth about love. about love and about power. if you love you give up power, exist in some kind of magical selfless plane. this may be true in some romantic situations. but to use it as some kindof ideal of what the world should be all thetime is a disservice. idealizing foucault... as subverting the dominating discourse... andbeing preoccupied with the notion this discourse is wrong and bad because it is teh dominating discourse (even labeling something the dominating discourse seems like it might be quite a leap much of the time), but to give foucault credibility based on taking away credibility of something else? that is dominating discourse again. which is sort of like what he said about the victorians- that denial of sex of restriction on it was about, was a preoccupation with, sex all along, not subverting but reinforcing its power. so you can see that if foucault had this within his reach, this idea, he might have been more critical of his own gestures towards acquiring power, but the impression i get based on SB is this isnot the case. but please, if i am wrong, explain why.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 5:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
the psychologist you refer to may be the current joseph campbell. He is that good. I think he is a little too secular and rational, but there is only so much onecan do lecturing inj a university. hehas done a hell of a lot with it. I watched two videos. they are very, very good. also I knew someone who got a ph d from university of toronto in compoarative literature, I believe. hewas very smart. very very smart. and very very kindand good. kind of egotistical. but still.
it helps if you are using a symbol is the symbol can be readily seen as serving its purpose. I mean.. symbols allow one to intuitively grasp what isbeing said on a lvel appropraite top theat person. for this reason using YG as a symbol does not seem appropraite to me, unless it is meant in aFrenchy, ironic, causticway, that can at best be said to shock the reader into action. or some kind of change. but I believe saying this is giving way too much credit to this magazine.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 5:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Rudolph Steiner for self assertion of young children. Emmi Pikler for infants. It's out there. But if you don't know it's out there, it isn't out there for you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 6:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
no, i call you illiterate because even though you see words, you don't understand what they mean.
there is a sense in which i am being "not nice". but that should not be troubling you so much. it should not "infuriate" jonny either.
i mean, it would not do for me to be polite, would it? that would be dishonest.
but i love this. for all the bluster about a different way of interacting, a different way of conversing, a different socialization, this thread still looks like a million other threads on the internet. when tested, it's the same ad hominems, same ploys to dismiss, same cognitive dissonance, same non sequiturs, same everything.
it's as if the vaunted training, the secret knowledge, trains you to be indistinguishable from everyone else.
the emperor's robe is magnificent!
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 6:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"No animal species is insane. Only humans are inhumane. Only humans prey on Their Own."
pretty sure this is false. most of your claims about animals are unsupported.
unsurprising conclusions stem from your conjecture about the state of nature.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 8:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
it's as if the vaunted training, the secret knowledge, trains you to be indistinguishable from everyone else.the emperor's robe is magnificent!/blockquote>
This is the meaning of Young-Girl.
As long as the Dominating Discourse rules this is what you can expect and all you are going to get.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 8:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the moment you cast yourself in (meta) heroic roles (tiresias), you should be suspicious (of yourself).
Don't cast me in meta heroic roles then, you filthy sleaze. You're as nauseatingly transparent as my creepy mother. I didn't cast myself in any roles. You are blind. You cannot see the truth in front of your eyes. You're a Young-Girl. I am not Tiresias. I am not standing up to Power that can hurt me. I probably wouldn't have told Zeus the truth if I knew Hera would blind me. It would depend on how much I valued Zeus' perception of reality.
If I wanted to corrupt it out of fear, I would bullshit. If I had no emotion, I would have no motive to lie.
You're not even reading the pure logic being written. You don't read what other people write because you're looking to snipe. You're a Young Girl. You're just trying to win in a battle inside your mind that's not being fought because you are fighting your mother's shadow. Only she had a motive to make you this way.
Blind.
I do, however, tell truth to Young-Girls every day and I can provide monumental evidence of that fact. Success in this world is measured by my values, which are sane. They used to be measured by external values, which are insane. I Won, by your value system; I was a leech exploiting the disparity between my mind and minds like yours. It was taking candy from big emotional, wealthy babies. Look at how obstinate you are that you are correct. Now imagine you had a lot more money than you do. Now put yourself on a poker table where your insanity is up against what you believe to be insane because you aren't bright enough to perceive what I can see.
I destroyed victims of their mothers like you. No one would play me. I already provided the degrading verification and you missed it the first time you demanded it, because you are blind. You don't even read what other people write. You just look for 'opportunities' to snipe.
Don't cast me in any meta heroic roles, you filthy sleaze. Open your eyes. I'm not your enemy. Your enemy is anyone who lies to you. You respect your enemies and you heckle truth. You're corrupted. You have disposable value, that's it. To someone wishing to dispose of you, you are worth lying to. To everyone else, you're worthless. Your body isn't that of a young girl. Your mind is a mirror image.
I'm screamed at non-stop but it's misery. I represent the image of value to a young girl. This is a needy world and little cretins who get no attention think "That would be nice". I just run away from their terrifying needy malice. It's called love, what they're doing. I run away from their needy love. It looks like this, if you're wondering. A broken predator, brilliant; but I can see through all their games. She was trying to stamp ownership on me the day after meeting me. It was very subtle but I see [more than you]. I stomped on it, and she broke. This is love.
It's not nice just because you don't get any. That's only what those who don't get any have been led to believe.
But when people frustrated me into conforming, I destroyed them. Your insanity cannot compete with mathematical truths. Your mother's skill at games of attraction cannot compete with my capacity to Win.
I won nothing. That's the point of everything I'm saying. I won misery. No one has any value, everyone's been reduced to worthless. You're just a blind bat who cannot see.
Young Girls are insane because they want what they cannot have. Their mothers made them this way playing corrupted games of attraction on their impressionable minds. As a result, humans demand to be hurt. This is insane.
The corrupted cannot respect anyone who doesn't make them afraid. You cannot appeal to their Self-interest because...look at you. You already Know Best. You will fight to ensure your ignorance is sustained because the implications that your entire life has been a lie of illusory pain inflicted upon you by your mother...terrifies you. Unless I make you afraid, you will remain blind as a bat. You will not even look at pics because you are not an e-cop policing truth; you just snipe because you're worthless and stupid and unable to rationalise why you don't feel good. I'm telling you. You won't listen. Stop lying. You're not even reading this.
I will not terrify you for your own good. It won't do you any good. That's why you're worthless. That's why you're all going to burn in your needy rapist predatory denial. "For their own good", is how Young Girls rationalise their needy malice and lies. It's how I rationalised the suffering I was inflicting, when I needed to Win.
Corrupted humans like you Demand their suffering. You're infected with toxic values. You value Power which means you respect those who have a rod and aren't afraid to swing it around. You value needy; you don't realise it. You're pathetic and those you value are even more pathetic than you. Your mothers did this to you. You will never perceive truth because truth isn't willing to hurt you, to win nothing. No one wins with pain. Everyone suffers. This is my point.
All humans can perceive is 'opportunity' because they're miserable, sniveling, power-infected rats. They're malicious as hell. If you're not terrifying them - if you are Selfishly kind to them or humane - they will not respect your 'weakness' and you will put yourself in danger because they will get blood-lust at the 'opportunity' they imagine you represent. You will be perceived as a mark.
I could show you evidence of all of this but you're a blind bat.
This is a world full of leeches who cannot produce or contribute anything of value because everything they value is based on emotional lies. They do not value truth or what is real. They Demand that you hurt them or they won't be afraid of you; if you are Selfishly kind to them, they become horrifying at the opportunity you represent. Well not you, or you'd know what I'm talking about. But value will understand what I'm talking about.
This is how low mothers (and the entire species) have been reduced. Everyone is reducing everyone else with their predatory lies. You've been cut down below Neutral (Self-reliance) and you're hacking away at your emotional superiors imagining their naivety is value. For their part, children are just too sane to see your needy insanity coming.
Girls don't respect those who do not hurt them. What humans want is not what they SAY or claim or assert. They're all filthy liars and they deceive themselves the most 'successfully'. Listen to their actions and who they reward to know what [they don't even know].
Pain. It's what humans want. It's not humane. It's not sane.
They want you to Treat Them Mean. It's the only way to Keep Them Keen. In games of corrupted attraction, this means you have to circle each other because you're at war trying to hurt the interests of those you love. It's what needy sociopaths do. Love is war. Whomever cuts first once interest has been triggered will Win.
You can't cut too early. You have to trigger interest. You cannot cut too late or you'll be cut. That's how games of attraction are played. That's love, in a nutshell.
You can't win. This is my point. Not when you're cutting. Everyone loses.
I have already Won, by your corrupted value system. I've Won beyond your capacity to comprehend which is why you sneer because you're Winning, in your mind of fail. I Win what you value, and I verify. Everyone who values what you value has no value. You're not looking to build or contribute or produce. You're just looking to leech. You've been cut down so low, you're worthless. It's time to wipe the slate clean. But Power will keep breeding you in needy confusion. It's a Pyramid scheme of pain.
I will not play. I will not Win again. You just want to suffer. Open your eyes. Ethics are your life-raft in a sea of insanity; to you, ethics are a buzzword. You have no character. No Self. You snicker at the ethical for accepting their liabilities. You're too shrewd for such pathetic behaviour like [sustainability] or [sanity]. In this world, you will go bankrupt if you're ethical. Ethics stopped being competitive a long, long time before the corporation [limited liability] was constructed. They wanted to limit their liability. How stupid are you, exactly?
They didn't want liability for their leeching malice. The corporation came into being. Truth pays its liabilities. That's what ethics is. In this corrupt world, if you avoid your liabilities you'll be rewarded for raping the most 'successfully'. That's capitalism. That's insane.
Look at the actions of humans, not their words. Look what they do, not what they say. They're all sniveling little rapists. There is no $$ in cures or disease prevention. All the money is in treatment of ongoing suffering. I'm not Nostradamus but I can predict the future because I'm brighter than you clowns. My eyes are open.
How you live is no way to live. It's not life. You're all just fighting to survive a world where humans have no threats or danger. But you just can't help your corrupted self, you have to rape each other. You only have fear to fear. But you don't. You fear what those who make you afraid tell you to fear. The only thing you have to fear is Protection racketeering. Anyone who needs you will make you afraid. It's what you reward when you're corrupted and reduced this low. They do what they need to do to motivate you. It's love.
Your ability to perceive reality has been corrupted by your emotional education.
"We propose a different emotional education."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 8:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Insane is not a clinical term but a judicial one, a legal one. Normal has come out of madness. Madness is not defined by not being normal. Normal was invented out of madness and then madness was defined as not conforming to the normal that had been derived from madness.
Yes I know that sounds mad but reading the genealogy of it you see that it is so.
We have the same problem with lies and truth. Lies are now regarded as truth and the "truth is a lie you can get locked up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for for 2 years to protect you from making the truth available. It has cost 3 million pounds now to lock Assange up for making the truth known. The question now is ,"What is a lie and what is a truth?"
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 8:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anyone with something worthwhile to say is mind-boggling for sharing the username of driveling fools (Anonymous). Pick a fake unique name. What the hell?
most of your claims about animals are unsupported.unsurprising conclusions stem from your conjecture about the state of nature.
My conjecture about the state of nature is accurate. If you have something of value to say, then make an argument. Make a case. Don't just disagree. That's insane.
I could show you the studies in collectivism and conformity where chimps are proved to have higher EQ than humans. But if you were capable of reading them and dissecting the logic, you'd already instinctively know that when I say animals are humane, I don't need to verify it because Grass is green.
Animals don't kill when someone offends them with truth. They don't kill out of embarrassment and shame.
They don't kill to defend their whore mother's reputation.
Mothers will kill to defend the lives of their offspring. In humans, it's the other way around.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 8:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Animals cannot be insane because insane is a legal term. You can make them psychotic however. There are many ways to do that which psychologists have done. And animals many ways of displaying psychotic behavior.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 8:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You can make them psychotic however. There are many ways to do that which psychologists have done. And animals many ways of displaying psychotic behavior.
Correct. They're not on top of the food chain, though.
If left alone, they wouldn't make each other psychotic. They wouldn't start prostituting their loving children for $$. They wouldn't sell their offspring for profit.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 8:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
PL is Young - Girl. A great example. Not an original thought or ability to process anything original or that disagrees with him. This is mostly what is in the world. This is what tiqqun describes as the war. You cannot "kill" PL here in this way. Let the dead bury the dead.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 9:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are illiterate (you don't know how to listen).
there is no "different emotional education".
that's snake oil you peddle.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 9:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
your words about me are very... convenient.
but if jonny's paying attention, which he's not, because he's illiterate, he'll notice that you're the whore mother he wants dead.
do you hear the gossipy, sycophantic whispers, jonny? "master jonny", it says. do you feel the flattery? the adoration? the neediness? are you sure i'm the blind one, tiresias?
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 9:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Rihanna comes from the Caribbean. Her interfaces with sex are different from Young-Girl in the US but she is also Young-Girl.
My reference to Rhianna was in respond to a very insightful comment about wanting to validate suffering. The American Dream, for example, is a Pyramid scheme of Pain that operates entirely on this trait of reduced humans. In not wanting to believe that those we love have lied to us, and are responsible for all our suffering and self-exploitation; we simply deny reality and drive onward in pain. Utterly lost but unwilling to accept that we made a life-shattering mistake.
Everyone resets their goals when they Win. Because winning is a lie.
There are no winners in this world. Name some winners and I'll prove to you that they're not happy. The only happy people in this world are temporarily happy; so they're happy on borrowed time and only by virtue of the fact they've been setup with lies and non-disclosure to believe reality is not as this surreal reality is. Their parents may have meant well. But this is why having children cannot be justified.
You cannot prepare children for this world without corrupting them. The corruption of insanity is such that to prepare for it makes you insane. Once it's been introduced into the game, it's M.A.D. Everyone prepares for War once leeches started cannibalizing the human species. They killed everyone who was too sane to fight. And now imbeciles imagine that might is right. They're all insane. It's all M.A.D.
The game ended 5000 years ago.
The only happy people in this world are those who have been irresponsibly or maliciously lied to and setup. They're walking towards their doom. They believe in tenets that are not true; that they won't be in danger if they're not causing trouble. Or, that they won't cause trouble if they're not seeking to be malicious. Or, that humans are capable of acting in their own self-interest.
None of this is remotely true in this insane world of lies and emotional corruption. Humans are so insane they will cut down anyone who threatens their tiny little bubble of non-pain. Humans are so insane they demand to be hurt or lied to before they'll respect your game. Humans are so insane they will hate someone for being better than them. That's why Raylene's point about pretty girls being hated (momentarily touched on by a couple of commenters) is so important. It requires more discussion because it's the insanity of religion. Coveting what you don't have and hating the person who has it.
How the fuck is that sane?
A threat = Competence. You'll make vicious enemies just by being good at the job you've been hired to do. They won't like you if you are good (I didn't say if you think you're good, I mean if you're really good). You'll be the enemy of all the little vermin because you're making them look bad.
Pretty girls make ugly girls look bad. They're hated for that reason.
Professionals make the incompetent look bad. They're hated for that reason.
Winners make losers look bad. They're hated for that reason. It's insane that people cannot see the truth about celebrity. Sure, everyone who is utterly worthless and a nobody wants to bother you without consideration for whether you're asleep, or whether you're eating, or whether you're in a important phone call; they just don't care. Because they just want to leech off you and tell you - as equals - how approving they are of you.
Shut their insanity switch off, refuse to be cordial to their sociopathic imposition, reduce them down to the truth of their utter insignificance - and you will see horror that you've never seen unless you're perceived value in a world of needy leeches.
They will scream. The hatred and the malice is personal. They will stalk you just to scream at you. It's the Christian hijack. They don't care. They just want to be identified with you. You're their identity. You've never met them but sanity has nothing to do with it. They will stalk you because you hurt their feelings by refusing to be imposed upon by them.
They're Narcissus' suitors. Only Narcissus is sane. And Tiresias. Both are alone.
Do you see Young-Girl in yourself? Which part? Does it hurt to look at those parts?
Of course I see Young-Girl in myself. My entire life is a history of Young-Girl. Whenever I get emotional and misperceive reality, I'm a Young-Girl. I'm not blinded by corrupted emotions anymore but when the screaming of insanity starts (in the way Puppylander has been screaming), I see the Void coming closer and closer.
I have a life of trauma where everyone has been screaming at me because I was not making them afraid and because I'm humane and provide value in a world of needy suffering and imagined emotional pain. When the screaming starts, it's very different for me than you. I posted a example in the one of my posts to Puppylander. That girl epitomizes Young-Girl. She's so ruthlessly cruel to guys, it's traumatizing. She loved me to the point where my life was no longer safe. Now she's met someone (thank fuck) and I no longer exist.
This is the extent of Winning. This is the reality winners don't talk about for various reasons; many of which are related to the reason why they're winning in the first place. They care about appearances.
I have no demented ego to satisfy. I have pursued happiness with an intensity I've never seen in another human; and when I satisfied all the ostensible variables for happiness, I saw the truth. It's all lies. Lies lies and cosmetics. Worthless illusions thrown up for the purposes of rape and exploitation. In a world which doesn't value truth, all sanity is forfeit.
Does it hurt when I see Young-Girl in myself? No. It's embarrassing maybe, but only because it doesn't impress me. There's no one worth impressing, really. Everyone's too busy lying to be impressive. All the Golden geese are dead.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 9:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are illiterate (you don't know how to listen).there is no "different emotional education".
that's snake oil you peddle.
Listen to this screaming madness. Hey, crazy guy; if two mothers each have a child and one prostitutes her child for $$ like the poverty-stricken mothers of Isaan (who are made to be poverty-stricken literally for this reason by Power) and the other mother only tells her daughter truth, in order to let her daughter choose what's in her best interests (with the mother only interested in making as convincing a case as possible), you have two wildly different emotional educations.
You're batshit insane. Now shut up.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 9:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
do you hear the gossipy, sycophantic whispers, jonny? "master jonny", it says. do you feel the flattery? the adoration? the neediness? are you sure i'm the blind one, tiresias?
Now the Young-Girl is doing what is called urinating in the pot. (S)he thinks it's crafty to attempt to spew her emotional poison onto others, her imagined emotional corrupted perception, her insanity. This is what the human species has been reduced to.
It doesn't get lower. How could it get lower than wars of attrition fought for profit and enabled only by corrupted emotional education? Just lies. Everyone dies for lies, incapable of perceiving the truth about Their Own.
Vassals, imprinted with love to die for your overlords who are as miserable and needy and desperate as those they lie to from birth and brainwash with a Christian emotional education to reduce them into...this...incapable of rising up and freeing themselves from slavery. Worthless disposable humans but I have no plantations to defend or operate so what use is their insanity to me?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 9:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i should revise... when i say "there is no 'different emotional education'", i mean "there is no *new* 'different emotional education'".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 10:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Maybe, just to see, I will try something different. It is pretty easy for me to say certain analytical and psychological things about Jonny. But maybe i will try saying something personal about myself. Just to see.
I had a bad mom, a mom who even had sexually inappropriate behavior towards me, who did drugs, who exposed me to violence, strange violent men, and porn. She was physically violent herself and like all teh books say, the psychological abuse was teh worst. Because it is so utterly baffling to understand, because it blames you, the victim, for everything, because it is hard to explain the pain when it is so much easier if someone just hits you. I mean, everybody knows that is abuse, it requires no explanation. But psychological abuse pretty much requires yourself getting well to explain it somewhat fully, and that is a tall order. it can't happen while you are still in the environment of abusae, either. Can't. By definition. And it is true that being abused fosters a certain kind of dependence, I guess. It isolates you from other people intrinsically, and abusers do this on purpose. and so yes, this makes you more dependent. Since you have no one else.
ANd I can see how it could be possible to come out of that environment with a warped sense of normal, so that you continue to tolerate abuse from everybody because that is what you know and what seems reasonable to expect.
Good therapy only happens when you are in a sense blind. What I mean is, when you let go of being able to see and control things like your impressions you give off even to yourself. Then stuff starts getting processed in such a way that you can feel it. this answer may show a lot of bias; I am not a therapist, it is just my experience. And most therapists emphasize things like skillsbuilding and stability and coping mechanisms a lot more than anything else;they don't tell you to lose it once in a while. I have just veered into the abstract, sort of, the theoretical. Well... when I got sick, I got sick in a lucky sort of way. I was angry, irrationally angry at women who had intact families and stability in particular. I didn't know that. All I knew was the really bad thoughts I had about them, the language was vile. I was often terrfied but didn't know it. I just felt it. and everything felt way too close to me, as if something about me showed that I did not want anyone to see, a terrifying sense of vulnerability. But I didn't have insight enough to even label the feelings. It took alot of time. I guess we can concede I was a mess. I could go on and on about how I was amess, though. I was also exhausted and slept nearly 24 hours a day. I never felt alone, and nothing ever felt private, I felt as though someone knew everything and was going to use everything to hurt me, for sure.
I tried to will myself into not thinking or feeling so as not to feed the energy i felt was feeding off of me.
YOu know what saved me, I think, in retrospect, mostly? Giving up. Just feeling it. Trying to analyze jhust made things that much more confusing and complicated. I couldn't discern the merits of things. I didn't trust what was going on, exactly. But what can you do? I was so tense so often i started to just liein water and let myself feel whatever bubble up. You learn to stop judging it. It is much easier to do in water than out of water. Don't ask me why. It just is.
One thing that happens when you stop fighting is, you conserve energy, and that is good, because fighting the inevitable feelings andwhatnot is exhausting. People need their energy for more conscious, more obviously willful pursuits anyway, such as taking care of their bodily needs and working, if they work.
In my experience, what happens is, when you let yourself feel the feelings in acceptance or the closest you can come to it, they change, and your quality of thought becomes greater. and it builds over time. another great thing about doing this is, it will still work if you only do it some of the time. Nothing in life is 24/7. I think originally I felt things mainly inn the tub with the door closed when i felt safe and closer to relaxed. when you get out of the tub, you can lkeave this if you want, and go backl to whatevder you wouldrather do/say/think/feel or what is habit or what feelsmor3e familiar.
I swear this helps.
It does bear a striking resemblance to dialectical-behavioral therapy, but I discovered it on my own by accident. But just to acknowledge that. The evidence that DBT works is pretty substantial, i hear, and it works for lots of things. It is good medicine.
If that helps at all.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 10:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice. Very nice. Actually psychoanalysis does this. You lie on a couch and free associate, tell your dreams, etc. And you do it 2 or 3 times a week for a number of years. And gradually you change. All your behavior is put into words and from time to time the analyst interprets. Your anger is welcomed, your tears, your laughter, your sex talk, your lecherous feelings, your murderous feelings, all of it. After some time you realize you have changed and you don't know how it happened but you have. Lacan did it differently, but he was mostly a theorist. He worked with Francoise Dolto who was a superb clinician and she did it through words, the symbolic use of words. She was a master at it and could produce change in a psychotic in one session. To learn to hear that way is like receiving a gift from the gods.
Water. The mother. The womb. The uterus. Safety, warmth and comfort. To re-experience it. A woman therapist in Canada treated anorexics this way in bed. She fed them like babies, changed their diapers, they did not have to do anything. They were infants again. And she cured many. Too labor intensive for our world tho.
Pop psychology is pop psychology. It is just psycho babble. They know nothing but have the jargon at hand. That is all. And they know how to refer you to the correct pill doctor for your meds.That is what psychotherapy is about now. Everyone now talks about therapy. When it is everywhere, it is nowhere. Sex is everywhere, it is nowhere.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 10:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
so two parts (three actually):
1. granted, cheap.
2. still, i'm not wrong about seymour.
3. really though, your theories suffer from a kind of incompleteness. i can see the world you see from the limited life you've led. ("limited" is relative.) but the cocky one isn't me, it's you. much of your formulation appears to be grounded in the degradations you've witnessed. but i have huge skepticism about whether you've ever been in a "normal" life. not fake "normal". normal normal. strike that, not normal normal, good normal. fuck it, have you ever seen a good life? would you recognize it when you saw it? have you ever seen the "different emotional education" demonstrated?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 10:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny you are not saying anything Nietzsche did not already say. You keep re-inventing the wheel. Why?
These people do not read Nietzsche or Foucault or Baudrillard for a reason. It feels too much like work. They want you to spoon feed it to them so they can argue with you. Why do you want to do it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 10:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe Jonny hasn't seen a different emotional education but I have. So what. How would that help you or inform you if I had or if jonny had? Illiterate means you don't read, have no culture. Is that what you want to say about jonny or me? Bring it on.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 10:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now you are behaving disturbed.If I am the whore mother, and I grant you that's a possibility, that's just transference. That's what transference is. The more interesting question is wondering what your transference is. With me. With Jonny.
And would you mind reposting that hot link to the youtube psychologist at Toronto? Please.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2013 11:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny here is one of my favorites, Babette Babich on all this: http://focusfree.blogspot.com/2013/02/simulacra-and-simulation-babette-babich.html?zx=7c30601154658971 A little text with big pictures.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 12:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well, just to stop fucking around...
jonny can't unsee what he's seen. by virtue of virtuosity, he has seen what others (of his kind--should become clearer below) can't see. he has become biased. this bias, while a useful defense against unbridled avarice (the life he had to lead--and the kinds of people you find along that path), is going to prevent him from recognizing "good". (it's essentially a trust/intimacy problem.) he's effectively damaged. he can be partly mended, but never fully. he was destined for this. no fault of his. he had no choice over the circumstances of his birth and upbringing.
but his experience is sorta irrelevant, to many (or maybe a few), e.g., me. let's say he's "outside" the city, and i'm "inside" the city. not that what tormented him couldn't visit me and mine, but there is a continuity to morality. good decisions + reverence of good decisions tend towards more good decisions. (conservatism/traditionalism justifies itself in this case.) bad decisions tend towards more bad decisions. (conservatism/traditionalism justifies itself in these cases too.) (in these contexts, i'm not talking about the "conservative" brand.)
the morality/survival theme is important. jonny comes from a world whose morals do not work. i.e., immoral morals. adversity exposes this. more importantly, "success" exposes this. i come from a different world. we respond differently to adversity than the denizens of jonny's world. we measure success differently than the denizens of jonny's world. it's a little like old money vs. nouveau riche, but that's not really it. the difference is subtler. it's like, jonny isn't blind per se, but he is color-blind.
jonny's a different duck.
you're still an idiot.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 12:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
PL you are a dinosaur in yesterday's world using stone age tools of words to say something that is meaningless. I do not look for meaning in that in which there is none. It is sad you don't know this and has nothing to do with what you say or do not say about jonny, about me, about anything at all. You are just so yesterday that you are only readable because it is a relatively short comment.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 1:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I had information about this spell caster www.prophetofgoddess.com, about his glorious spells and help to people, but at first I felt unconcerned because I hardly go for such things and I thought his work has a side effect, but when I gave him a chance to cast a spell for me via his private e mail [email protected] because I was very in need of it about my ex who hated me so much and left, to my surprise his spell worked, my ex came back to me very fine and fast with much love, my praises to the great prophet and the GODDESS.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 1:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny may be this level of angry all the time because he is actually very sad. hespeaks of everything being empty, of there being no love.
part of what obscures thatsense that he may be very sad is that it might be very easy for people to say, yes, a life of gambling would be misery inducing or adictive. he himself says this. but is it so bad really? it isn't considered an addiction in the dsm 4 or 5. there is debate i believe about whether gambling produces pleasure or pain. we might see it as not a good life, but is it so different from any other kind of work when one does not have a vested interest in seeing it as different? perhaps he just sees it through the lens he sees everything elsethrough, which is a defence against how sad he feels, really.
one thing gambling might do- I am not totally sayinjg that it is purely just work, that it is not in some ways unique- is reinforce to him how very capable he is of lying, something he must have done a lot growing up and so the sensation of needing to be inauthentic to survive would be re-victimizing. he wouldn't want to label it as such. but it would be. turning it around and seeing himself as thevictimizer and not the victim might for him make him feel safer. but it isn't accurate. it is a distortion.
allowing yourself to be sad is hard for some abused people, I never had this pro--- I don't really know this intimately myself, i don't think. But I think they see it as re-victimizing, as powereless in a way anger is not.
as far as jonny being an innocent victim and not knowing goodness, ic ouldn't disagree more, and i don't think that kind of fake empathy wouldhelp him at all. i think he does want responsibility on some level. I think people have an ainnate capacity to recognize goodness. your own body feedback will give you rewards for it, it is all chemicals. chemicals and physical reactions. i think you can slow your heartbeatand calm your minand probably even produce endorphins and whatnot this wey. like biofeedback.
saying he does not know goodness robs him even further of a responsibility he should want to have, need to have, because it is empowering.
he probably nees things he can be sure of. thingsthat makehim feel safelike he won't be revictrimized. I don't think that means shielding from a person's perceived truth, because i think he wouldfind that unbelievably condescending. it might feelmore dangerous than safe. he loathes being lied to. notthat you can't use whatever tools you have to not make it utterly unbearable, the truth.
when you bathe and practice self acceptance, more impoirtantlywhen you practice self acceptance while making yourself feel as safe to do so as you can, you are re=parenting yourself. i think there is no point in telling aperson this because it would sound like too much of a task and might produce pressure for felt results in a bad way... might make a person critical towards themselves or feeling bereft they have to do such a thing as to re-parentthemselves, might make them feel the loss all the more. but that is what you are doing.also, it would get someone in the habit of expecting tohave to do homework which is intrinsically a good idea for anyone intherapy, my personal opinion.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 2:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
and i do agree that people who have been abused in childhood aren't wehat they might have been otherwise, based on experience. that is why it is a loss. I know there are parts of me that will never be normal, ever. If it were a physical wound, a signioficant personal wound, nobody would question that fact. people likeJohn Bradshaw promise total recovery in ... well, one of his books anyway. He sets people up for disappointment. You have to mostly set realistic expectatioons for thing in lifebecause when you don't, people end up more upset than if you had madethat much clear in teh first place. John Bradshaw makes me so mad. "You can heal your life!" from a book. It's crazy.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 2:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
bathing and diapering anorexics sounds like totaql pop psych to me, but i recall this is from someone who likes a.s. neil. a.s. neil is great until you actually raise children; he is just another example of sounds-so-good-in-theory=but-does-not-work-when-applied stuff. I mean, I am sure it is great for some people, although one wonders what kind of hime life they must have to do better inwhat is a bording school. am i ranting? anyway- treating anorexics this way sounds unethical to me and demeaning, plus it is, just on a common sense on-the-face of it level, like a bad idea. so i don't think.... but i can see how it might appeal to parents, teh same way i can see how a.s. neil might make parents feel great, being so free with their kids. and insofar aschildren need their parents not to be crazy, maybe it helps the kids. i thnk the bath idea is probably not the main point, although it would help maybe put aperson in touch with their body. to some people bathing in itself is terrifying of course. especially because lots of abuse happens in a bathroom and water can be deadly. I jhust sort of gave up at som epoint trying to get people to structure their own rituals more because I think it is a lot of thought to be applied to something a person might not already be familiar with and might think is weird, so I jiust kind of strated to bottom-line it. not a great choice for all people though. also, some people need to be told exactly how to do things, things will work better for them if they are really relying on someone else's judgment or expertise or if they need to believe in somebody who is not themselves. I know this froim experience, too, for myself, although it is not that common with me, but it does happen. anyway- I was beinlazy, there is a better way to sructure how to create a safe environment for unsafethings.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 3:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Neill is correct tho. And I did doit ina a classroom in 1966-67. Children of non authoritarian parents bloomed.Imagine an 8 year old coming in in the morning and saying to me,"Last night as I was going to sleep I thought of a poem:
Oh Atlas
With your glistening finger
Bore a hole
Through the earth
So man may die
And the animals
Live in Peace"
She's a well know musician now who records and who lived in Italy with a group playing flutes and music in the time of Dante. I know I am not responsible for her success, but I do know the consequences of having a year in her life -and mine - without hassles from authoritarian administrators. Or at least none that I couldn't brush off. To get something like this poem........thank you A. S. Neill.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 3:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
and puppylander. no. Alone's websiteis completely unique. completely. including the comments. it does actually have a bit of a mystical kind of cachet to it. for lack of a better, maybe more precise ormore restrained way of sayingthat. anyway- it is compelling.sometimes teh comments are ... I'm not saying they're all good comments. But reallyuseful, yes.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 3:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Considering no other therapy has had any success with anorexia and she had nothing but success, I think that speaks for itself.I might take what you say more seriously if your syntax was correct, your spelling, your grammar, and your lack of time in editing detracts.Just slap dash is the image you project. If you can't answer me seriously while you dispute what I say, then why should I take you seriously.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 3:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see you are a big fan of the Big Other.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 3:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Bradshaw is a pop psychotherapist who leads large seminars - or did - that pulled in a lot of money. When you have been in the presence of a master in the field you know the difference.Abused in childhood is just a matter of degree and kind. I feel jonny received a great gift. Now what to do with it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 3:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When you step into the psychological swamp of interpretation you necessarily drown in it. It is difficult to throw it all under the bus especially if you have spent an enormous amount of time and money learning the Discourse. It simply shows off one's intelligence or lack of it and contributes nothing at all to the person it is directed towards. Better read Artaud. Really it is useless. Trust me I know. I was there Charlie. It's very difficult to let it go. Predicting problems in adulthood from childhood dismisses the individual, their existential choices in favor of determinism and conditioning. It does not allow for a CUT in your life. A before and after, a transgression, a crossing of the abyss.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 3:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stop it. This is just blathering. It is meaningless. Don't do it. It is embarrassing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 7:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I want to say a big thank you to Prophet Krishna for the good work he has done in my dad's life and my marriage. He helped my dad in his court case, a spell was casted for my dad 2days before his court case and cause of that the judge ruled in his favor...and he also helped in reuniting i and my husband, i can't explain how he did it I'm actually short of words. But one thing is certain he's so good at what he does, he sure knows how to cast a real spell and the one that works. I'm so blessed by him and he can as well bless you too, all you need to do is to contact him on ( [email protected]yahoo.com and website www.prophetofgoddess.com )
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 8:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
dinosaur? foolishness. human haven't changed much in tens of thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. you don't need cutting edge tools. there are no new tools. you don't understand this. that's why when you read me, you see cliches and ignore the message. illiterate. no problem. throw some crap in a box, slap on a shiny sticker, sell it to seymour.
jonny's dumb because he's sorta ignorant. (he gets a "sorta" because he knows what he knows, but he gets an "ignorant" because he doesn't know what he doesn't know.)
you're dumb because you're stupid.
i'm dumb because i'm lazy.
so here's my self-correction... jonny should set the young-girl theory aside for a minute. there's a better fit.
"young-girl" doesn't really capture the essence of jonny's social critique. there's a different word (two, actually), not a person, not the place per se, but the people, and their culture: las vegas. (have you been?)
jonny, what do you think? doesn't las vegas describe everything that you see wrong in this world?
i've only ever been once. it took me less than 5 minutes after setting foot there to notice that everything in las vegas (nay, everything *about* las vegas), *everything*, top to bottom, left to right, rich to poor, men to women, blacks to whites, straights to deviants, beginning to end, through and through, is designed to part you from your money, quickly (literally "for a quick buck"), but more importantly, for nothing in return. it's the fake pearls in the joy luck club (disambiguate from the novel, which was also terrible, but smashing a fake pearl with a teacup is a nice image). sell your soul for a bauble. there's not one person in vegas you can trust. depending on who goes with you, you may not even be able to trust the people you thought were friends. everyone has their hustle on.
las vegas is an exploitative extractor. there's a quality to the atmosphere there. (there are other places that feel "evil", but jonny's bugaboo is particularly las vegas.) (hollywood is similar, but [cliche alert] that's not his bag.) (if "young-girl" is yours, then yours is new york, or particularly, wall street. but yours isn't really young-girl, that's just the flavor of the day.)
jonny's story is the story of the countless lottery winners who should be set for life, but who end up worse off than before they won. too much, too quickly, unearned. the blessing that's a curse.
the cautionary tale for jonny isn't, of course, glengarry glen ross. it's scarface. and one line in particular. "first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the woman". it worked in the movie, except that it sorta didn't. and jonny has learned that irl. the devil is in the details. the truth is: if you get the money, then you get a power, and then you get certain kinds of women.
but there's a caution that's been around at least a few hundred years: money is the root of all evil. i only throw this in here to illustrate that you don't need new tools. you just need to understand what it means. (not what you think it means, what it really means.)
there's a strong parallel between las vegas and new york/wall street. when i interned there, the wall streeters loved "liar's poker" (the book, disambiguate from the game). they also loved saying: "take a look around the table. if you don't know who the sucker is, it's you." similar. you're hard-pressed to trust anyone you meet there. everyone has their hustle on. this is why jonny's not averse to "young-girl". the critiques run parallel.
so here's the thing. jonny was too smart by a half. he "made it". i didn't (not in the way he did). the curse that is a blessing. he made it and lives in a bubble. i didn't and live in a different bubble. why is this the thing? because i can see his world. he can't see mine. sure, the worlds intersect here and there, but i will never enter his bubble. and he (personally), unfortunately for him, fortunately for me, will never enter mine.
everything that worked for him, works at an abstract level in a lot of places. part of it is because, so far as he can tell, vegas holds universal attraction. he's "met" or seen people from "all walks of life", from "all over the world", of "all different colors and stripes". part of it is because the "evils" he sees exist in some form everywhere. just, exaggerated in vegas. he found his hammer, the world is nails.
his first challenge will be to tell the difference between compromise and compromise. (poor imitation of derrida. sorry.) rephrased, in his world, is there a compromise that isn't a prostitution?
his second challenge is to acquire some more tools. e.g., has he ever really risked anything on his path to success? pro gambler? surely the answer is "no, he never really *risked* anything." calculated risks, right, jonny? not real risk. more cliche: nothing ventured, nothing gained. that's why, for all he's "won", he has "nothing".
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 9:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's no need to feel bad for a fleeting feeling of "I wish someone would do", but if you think that you're personally wronged because another living human being chose something you didn't like, then you are not seeing them as them. If you think your best friend should always be there for you, you're crazy. He has his own life, he has things that have to get done, he has bad days, he has other friends with other needs. To feel that he wronged you because he couldn't drop everything and run to be at your side is insane. You've mentally started seeing him as your slave who exists only to be there for you. That's what emotions taken too far can do, they make you own people, they make other people own you.
And I'm not opposed to cultural frames per se, I'm against the blind use of them. When you don't even see that there is a frame, it's downright dangerous. When you can see a person or a group only through the frame, you are in danger of being manipulated into doing things that you wouldn't do if the frame was not there. If you know that you have cultural preconceptions about certain behaviors and people and groups, you can either challenge them or at least recognize that they exist. When you don't even know about the frame, you have a leash, someone who knows what those frames are can use them.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 9:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
for some reason, my username disappeared. i'm anon at 8am.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 12:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i should clarify something about this: "he made it and lives in a bubble. i didn't and live in a different bubble. why is this the thing? because i can see his world. he can't see mine. sure, the worlds intersect here and there, but i will never enter his bubble. and he (personally), unfortunately for him, fortunately for me, will never enter mine."
when i say jonny can't see my world, i mean that when his world and mine converge, he only sees his world. it's like ptsd. he can't shake off the need for constant vigilance. my world is invisible to him. it's inaccessible. jonny lives in las vegas. (not the place but the state of mind. so when i use the word "success" and "survival", he doesn't recognize what i mean. he recognizes what those words mean in las vegas. he doesn't recognize what else it could mean.)
and this: "everything that worked for him, works at an abstract level in a lot of places. part of it is because, so far as he can tell, vegas holds universal attraction. he's "met" or seen people from "all walks of life", from "all over the world", of "all different colors and stripes". part of it is because the "evils" he sees exist in some form everywhere. just, exaggerated in vegas. he found his hammer, the world is nails."
first, just as young-girl isn't a person, las vegas here isn't a place. you can find las vegas everywhere. and jonny sees las vegas everywhere. he doesn't get to see the world that isn't las vegas. the enclaves that reject las vegas don't reveal themselves to him. we don't go to his world.
second, particularly instructive is the comment by anon re: emotion/fear of a black man. the safe play (blunt instrument/hammer) is to avoid. doesn't matter that the man means no harm, will do no harm. distrust everyone's motives, and you won't be betrayed. when you're colorblind, red and green look the same. all compromise is prostitution. everyone lies. no one can be trusted. look out! black guy!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 1:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
so you are saying he is psychotic. or that he profoundly asserts, projects his experience on the world. or that he is stupid. really stupid. all assessments you are probably not qualified to make. either that or an assessment only you are qualified to make, depending on how I view it.
psychosis is not the rigid, impermeable state people think it is. there are inroads and outraods. that is not the common conception but it is true. it ramps up and winds down.
it is true it is very easy to see the possibility that there is willful behavior behind how he is, what he does. doesn't mean it is all willfull behavior; by virtue of being human, it can't all bewillfull behavior. I get the temptation to dismiss and save your energy and think it can be a valid choice, sure. for you. but that does not mean everyone doing that all the time is right for him, even if he is a monster.
stupid.... well. Jonny is not stupid, and does not want to be. If you don't want to be, you won't be. That is simple. Humans by virtue of existing all know something.
wow- I feel great. thanks- I rarely get to be this humanistic.
I tend to take that stuff with a grain of salt. Gaddamn happy motherfuckers, skipping through the grass, drinking tea, anyway.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 1:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
hell, one more thing. there has been some talk online- and no, it was not a quality site, but lets judge it by the quality of the thought anyway- that psychosis, specifically schizophrenia, is possibly a form of profound dissociation. saying what anything 'is' is hard. but if treating it like it is can have results, why not. you can treat it like it is without even labeling it as such. from everything I have heard, nobody knows what to do with or about schizophrenia anyway, treating it like dissociation might be something to do. It is a safe bet that while it was not all that for me in my psychosis--- I think there were a lot fo things, a lot of possible inroads and over time more and more outroads to deal with it---- dissociation played I think a big part, por treating it like it was played a big part. Although I wouldn't have been cognitively able to label it as such. Ofcourse, ... in a weird way too...dissociation can help things. I think. So fixing it by itself, and not fixing other things, maybe not so great.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 1:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
no, you are going to extremes saying bradshaW is a pop psychologist, it is just your disdain for anything that isn't weird and cutting edge maybe. Bradshaw did some very good work in I believe it wasBradshaw on The family in making family roles withinthe family system and their devestating, limiting effects very comprehensible to many people. He did some work with addictions that might be okay as well. He then sort of succumbed to maybe believing his own press releases or something and wrote a bad book claiming you could heal your life basically by re-parenting yourself with something akin to positive affirmations. It was teh eighties and a lot of people were basically saying the same things.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 1:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
there is as much to be said for getting mad at people for not being there and there is for letting go of how they are not there. Like if you're married. If you keep letting go and keep letting go and keep letting go, maybe eventually your desire dries up and you figure why not let go permanently. Then your marriage ends which might not be what your spouse wanted when he was busy being a selfish pig.
and as far as seeing people how they are, we do I thinkj, in shadows and glimpses and probably most massively, IMHO, sexually. But really seeing someone as they are... with total accuracy... why would youi want to? the strangness of that state of mind, of totally experiencing someone completely, wouild be disorienting for a person personally because they'd have to forget themselves. Assuming it is even possible. Might not be great if you also loved the person, because people do have some nasty shit in them. human beings need us to somettimes not see their shit, it is a forgiving gesture towards them.
it's concilliatory.
as far as seeing your own cultural frames accurately, seeing them accurately- assuming you can- does not set you free from them; thinking yu see them accurately might might you even more prey to them. It's good if you think it is good for you. I guess.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 2:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It might have been a good move to have a open thread on TLP once in a while, say once a week.
I'm sure many readers here have original takes on current events, or on distant history for that matter.
The model I have in mind, is "drumbeats" at "the oil drum", which is a good forum for energy discussions. To make it even better, I'd vote for TLP to pick a moderator after a while for sake of the signal/noise ratio.
Just a thought.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 2:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
you know, this young girl magazine is a stiking example of thevery thing it is railing implicitly against. it's total hypocricy for absolutely no reason unless the point is howing it's own readers up.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 2:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
it is thought that shirley jackson did the same thing with her short story The Lottery, but Jackson left, quite intetionally I am sure, an out for anyone with any real insight in the story, an out that is consistent with her good charcter. Fundamentally good character. The Young Girl magazine does no such thing
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 3:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, who "owns" your spouse? The idea that you'd want to force him to stay with you after he's made it clear that he doesn't want that is the same thing as a slave. I OWN YOU, and you have no right to make a different decision after the fact. Sometimes people just grow apart, sometimes things don't work out, sometimes they get better. If you both agree that working on the marriage is a good thing, that's one thing, but if he doesn't want to stay, why are you forcing him to?
As to wanting to see the real person, why wouldn't you want to know the real person? You supposedly love them, you care about them, why wouldn't you want them, rather than an image of them, or a movie script version of them? That's the reality of them without the masks. Sure they have "evil stuff" in there, but just as importantly, SO DO YOU. I get pissed and want revenge, I don't even always live up to what I say I want. I've lied, I'd probably steal if the circumstances were right. It's called being human.
I doubt personally that it's ever possible to break free entirely of a frame. It's not, but if you realize that they exist, you can at least try to figure out whether a belief is true or simply a part of the Western Cultural Frame. No one gets free of the frame, but if your frame says "Islam is bad" and you hear something bad about Islam, your tendency is to not question the belief in your head. Once you know that you have a cultural frame that includes "Islam bad" if you hear someone saying bad things about Islam, you would be more likely to question it. Or if you hear good things about your political philosophy -- it's a part of the frame, and it needs to be questioned.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jackson was appalled to receive letters from readers wanting to know where this place was so they could go and watch.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The frame is the Discourse you are in. And when you are in it you can't see it; only when it ends can it be described. The classical Hegelian one is over. How do I know? Because it is and has been described. Power is also over. Foucault has done that. The frame we are in now is Simulated Reality. When it becomes total it will be Virtual Reality. From VR there is no escape. Go play some games to see what it feels like.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Young-Girl is not a zine. It is a sort of manifesto from collaborative work by radicals of great scholarship I might add. It is to be expected that few of you here understand it. You haven't spent serious downtime with Foucault, Baudrillard, Lacan, Deleuze, etc and that would take some years. Good luck.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's exactly what a good hit of LSD did way back then. Lots of people suicided, many went frothing mad. Think of Bataille's little story so often told:
A man and woman fell in love. She asked him which part of her he fell in love with first. "Your eyes, of course," he said. A few days later when opening his mail he opened a little box. Init was her excised eye. I don't think anyone has ever replied to this better, do you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This thread is eating up bandwidth like no tomorrow. I think the site has been abandoned. No moderating if hot links go into moderation. Takes forever to load and I have 500 gigs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Honey he just jumped on the family therapy bandwagon. Actually it started with the Navaho. Ross Speck was one of the originators. I have forgotten most of the rest. Bradshaw came on the scene very late. A pop one, not an original. Minuchin was just about the first. Read him then read Bradshaw. You will see the difference in scholarship.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Spotnitz is the one who developed treatment for curing Schizophrenia without drugs. Delauze has a much different take on it linking it with Capitalism in his book Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Don't go into that book unless you know your Freud and Marx. Freud comes out better than Marx.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are right. Las Vegas is not a place. It is a simulacrum. When you go there you enter Simulated Reality. Not so different from the Capitol of Panem in The Hunger Games.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How you write is how you think. You think in cliches. Language has changed humanity and has introduced the concept of The Human. The Human has not been around so very long. The Symbolic Order does not change.
Cultures do change even while their Symbolic Order remains the same.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 4:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Onownership I give you how Lacan defined marriage: Each party in the contract has legal and exclusive ownership of the other person's sexual organs.
France went into a furor over that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 5:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
France has a tizzy about everything. It all sounds like teh bougeoisie and teh people reacting to the bougeoisie. Sorry if i misspelled, I haven't taken French in a few years. *You'll* have a tizzy about the misspelling.
There are people who still believe people are mostly good or good once their bullshit gets stripped won. I think this is rousseau, more or less. It is not really true, it is a gross oversimplification by people who for some reason need to believe that, because of their own issues. Everyone has a sprk of divinity at birth. That is it, one spark of divinity in teh true sense of the word. To insist they have much more means either your sense of divinity is severely limited or you are maybe disowning much of what you can yourself observe about human beings. Anyway at least people get better with effort.
In teh example i used, I did not say the guy wsanted to leave. You did. I just said, that there is at least as much love and as much to be said for getting in someone's face asthere is for staying out of it and "acceptiong them for who they are." and anybody should maybe try to have some of both. But as far as ownership goes, if everything is relative, and it pretty much is, if you can't own your spouse I don't know who you can own. Certainly not your kids.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 7:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I just remembered, I think, why treating anorexics like babies would never work, even if it made any sense, was legal, and was not unethical. It's too overt. It's not sneaky or subtle at all. they'd know exactly what was going on. And so, reacting honestly to it and not making 5 million defenses would not happen. I think. Isn't that right?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 8:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
She was Canadian, she was a private therapist, the patient probably agreed to go to her and stay with her. She only did a few patients at a time. She held them a lot. She was experimental working with hard core cases with success. But to replicate it would be almost impossible because it was so labor intensive. She was written up. Maybe you can find her story. But in going back to the very beginning she was correctly perceiving the problem. You on the other hand just like to be argumentative, throwing in your 2 cents all over the place to get people to pay attention to you. You just got what you wanted. Did it make you happy?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 8:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Seymourblogger.
It's exciting to read some of your opinions.
On observing your intellectual sources (Foucault, Deleuze, Lacan, Baudrillard etc) I realize that I'll probably fail in utilizing language correctly, and that you possess complicated ideas I should be more familiar with in order to have a fruitful discussion. So please, bear with me.
I've always wondered how it must be, up on that plateau with all this advanced insight on how the world and its people work. You and your peers must be very intelligent.
Analyzing history at large, I view the development of mathematics as one of the major forces for shaping Europe (i.e the world), not only in a material sense but also spiritually. It's disappointing that these brilliant minds who know e.g. Deleuze intimately has neglected calculus, making further discussion...demanding.
In particular these passages got me curious:
- What is meant when saying "Power is also over" (as a discourse). What did Foucault do? Did he teach us something about power?
- "How you write is how you think." Taken at face value this is obviously false, so I gather I'm missing out something vital. Please comment briefly, but there is no need to feed me (and rest of TLP's readership) with a spoon.
- "Lacan defined marriage: ......."
He must have meant _redefined_ marriage. The concept of marriage has specific and well known origins. Partnership/mating are parallel and similar concepts, but distinct from "marriage", which is a religious concept I'm sure you're familiar with. I'll expand if anyone is confused.
You may read between the lines that we're not on the same diet, but I respectfully urge you to briefly comment. And please do not respond that I'm unread or in some way unfit to understand an eventual response. Try me. Also, I welcome comments from other readers.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 8:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I would suggest you just read the originals. Start with a collection of their readings to see if you want to go further.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 9:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Seymourblogger.
I probably deserved that one.
While I was sincere in requesting light to be shined one those three bullet points, the rest of it was an attempt to put diapers on you and leave you to rest.
Anyway. Your suggestion isn't a very good one. Reading originals is the best strategy if you're studying history, attempting to recreate the past in your mind. Only through reading/looking at the original one get the taste for how it must have been. It's about the details, on how you're implicitly are given more information depending on wordings, framing and omissions.
If you are studying ideas on the other hand - there are more often than not a tremendous gain in secondary literature. As time passes and perspective arise, more information get to be integrated and you get to see intellectual dependencies and influences more clearly. Secondary literature tend to have absorbed and arranged these mountains of information, a process which is essentially the one that make it possible for people like you and me to acquire insight spanning a far larger scale than would be possible if we were to rely on originals.
Most people would say a mixture is best, and the selection is based on one owns judgment.
The reason I initially degraded(?) the discussion, was your seemingly condescending attitude towards those who haven't read _your_ literature. In my view, you're in error thinking those people you've been fed with are important in a intellectual sense.
I apologize and remind you that those three bulletpoints were sincere enough questions. I'm taking you serious, no matter how misguided you may be and yes, if I can learn something from this exchange I'd be very grateful. Don't feel obliged to respond, but if you do please be level with me - as I am with you.
PS: Of course, additional participants are most welcome. Come on! Answer my questions!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 9:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There is a major post modern reply to your emphasis on secondary sources that critiques what you said. I suggest Foucault's The Order of Things to get at why.
If you really want to know more then why not just read my blog posts. You could start with http://moviesandfilm.blogspot as I write for the person with no formal background in post modern thought. I do condescend to people who critique me who haven't read anything but sound bites that are mostly negative in the US. But there are wonderful pockets to study and learn all this if you are serious. What I do is quote directly within the context of an experience most of us have had, seeing a particular movie. On the side is my blog list where you can go into more depth if you feel like it. There are some remarkable writers out there on this topic. I seem to be one of the few who are interested in more people becoming more acquainted with the ideas in post modern thought. If you persist it will change the way you think, speak and write. At the moment I am working on Thucydides History of the Peloponnesain war on a paper Cracking the Thucydides Code in which we see the beginnings of genealogical thinking that Nietzsche made more prominent through Foucault. So how does Thucydides relate to the american History of wars through the recent Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty. I look forward to your comments on that on my movie blog. This site is becoming very stuffed full of band width when loading.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2013 11:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I figured it out, I think. Jonny's not psychotic, not a narcissist, not a sociopath, he's an abused kid who is stuck. I think. I know sometimes he sounds psychotic, although I think some of that is that he is hard to listen top and so people including me want to shut him up by labeling him. And some of his logic is not so great, sure. But his use of the term 'golden geese' that I have heard twice now. To a bad doctor I think it would just sound like ... psychotic people, I think schizophrenics, like to use language idiosyncratically. Zctually, wait. No, I'm right. But when Jonny uses thisterm, which sounds like typical angry weirdness sort of, he uses it absolutely correctly even in the midst of his other stuff that sounds not so logical. He uses it to describe a broken world that cannot be unbrokenb because the thing that gives it it's value is gone. I'm not sure he could do that intuitively if he was as psychotic as he sounds otherwise. Maybe. But I don't think so. I think he just has a lot of stuck emotion.He own philosophy is to let emotion be stuck by denying it and he is doinhg just that. that is in a weird way a lot of willpower directed atexactly what he is getting... kind of weird. Usually I don't think people quite that precisely get what they set out to get, I think it is more complex for most people. But if you could take all that emotion and all that willpower and focus it on something worth getting, I think that would really besomething.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 12:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are psychologizing, what Freud wrote in a paper called "Wild Psychoanalysis." All it is is a display of erroneous thinking. There are plenty of philosophers of very great repute that are saying what jonny is saying, only their language is refined, subtle and displays years of academic learning and communicating. What none of you can stand is reading it in THE RAW. None of you would bother with the original writers who are saying identical things about the world we live in. There is no fixing it. It is unfixable. This is what jonny is also saying. In an unfixable world what is there to apply yourself to TO GET! THERE IS NOTHING TO GET! People keep trying to get something because they don't know there is nothing to get.So they get X and that doesn't do it so they desire Y and when they get Y that doesn't do it and all this takes quite a long time and soon you are old and/or sick and retire and go on stupid cruises to see the world you didn't see in a way that closes the seeing of it to you.
Zizek is the only one who is visible to masses of people, who sees this and who is trying to say enough to reach people. He reaches me, and so I write about it. I don't think I will have much influence, but maybe I can affect a few people to whom that will make a difference. IDK. But it interests me to keep on learning more and to realize there are more and more out there that I can interface with. Far more than two years ago. I was pretty much alone when I started in 09. I lived in a small Ozark town, knew no one very well, had no access to any academic institutions who had people working on all this, just me and my books. No one to talk with about it. So I began to write following a template that Diane Rubenstein used to teach post modern thinking to Wisconsin undergraduates who did not have a background in philosophy. She read it through American presidents and some first ladies. I decided to do it through Twilight and that fandom. And now I have found wondrous companions through this. And I am inching my way back into academia via symposiums where I can present a paper as bloggers have attained some clout in the past few years and I have a huge body of work now online that acts as my resume. I am not very ambitious however and I pass up far more opportunities than I go after. It is open season now. Run with it. If you have something to say. And write. I notice now that university professors get stuff for their POMO lectures from me. Read Foucault through Stephen Colbert one student said her prof did at a lecture. I googled and found my blog post as source material. I don't say much in my voice. I just connect dots and let the authorities in the field be seen in new and different ways. I mean Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War read through the American Civil War and Iraq! Think genealogically and all sorts of things hit you in the face that were just lying there waiting to be seen. Secrets that are not secrets.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 1:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Every person alive has that sort of nature, their natural nature, the one that existed before the culture taught them to be what they became instead.
This is perfect.
Raising children 'Right' is how children are made to be inhumane.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 1:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i should revise... when i say "there is no 'different emotional education'", i mean "there is no *new* 'different emotional education'".
No emotional education would be *new* and different. Allow human children to be Selfish and humane and sane.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 6:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Freud also wrote about wiolhelm Reich, wholethis wacky special interests dominate his life and career and make him seemcrazy and inaccessible to other people. Reichwas a little grandiose but oddly wouldhave probably progressed further if he'd valued other people's opinions more. Freud called Reich's preoccupations, orgone and all that, his 'hobby horse.' AS Neil wasa fan of Reich's. I think Freud was probably nice even with the keen sense of humor. Do you understand what I am saying?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 10:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny, it's simpler. have children of your own. (think of that as your ante.) raise yours as you think children ought to be raised. (bet.)
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 2:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Barely. Your writing is very close to a "word salad." Schizophrenic U know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 2:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Major Depression with Psychosis. You don't understand because you're not a shrink like you say. Word salad does not need to be in quotation marks. You get it wrong a lot, and with such arrogance. You come from a bad place with much of what you say, a very unkind place.I never thought Alone should block anybody except me on occasion, but I think he should block you. Because what you just said was way over the line.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 2:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And as far as word salad goes, I haveheard it, and it is actually lovely tolisten to although challenging to work with. But my writing even at its worst does not resemble word salad. It is mean of you to use that term issuch a way as to be an implied insult, but what is new. You are often like this.I kind of like the challenge of working with it, I'd welcome it back if I new anybody with it. It is not that common.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 3:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
your suggestion is interesting...
so, first, it seems seymour is abbey's sockpuppet.
but, also, i get this feeling that i've encountered seymour someplace before. similar sort of thing. i can't remember precisely where...
i tried google to jog my memory. it turned up seymour/abbey being banned from dailykos (but who hasn't been banned from kos?).
it also turned up seymour/abbey being banned from some ayn rand forum. but that's not where i would know her from.
i feel like it's from way back, back when the internet was... new. kind of another fake philo/psych chat. i think it was called acausal connections. i vaguely recall her being banned from there too.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 3:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am both abbeysbooks at disqus and at dailykos. I am also seymourblogger. Long ago I used tenaj or tenajyebba at Utne Cafe. That might be where you remember me. Unlike you I always use my same ID's as I have not said anything I wish to disavow. I have changed in this time (a blessing) but what I said then, I meant then. And I meant it to be seen. And you have just hit the tip of the iceberg hon.
You are just another troublemaker with some sound bite smarts. Another Young-Girl. So glad tiqqun defined that object into existence. You can't win an argument because you don't know enough, so you attack people to get things going, and then get nasty and try to dig up dirt when you can't win. I didn't want to leave dailykos (what a blessing tho)but I refused to erase a post when the GPU came to get me as they did everyone one by one by one. Driving Dave from Queens into a heart attack and death when they did him, and that was when it cleaned up a little. His family should have sued. It was bullying pure and simple. Murder.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 4:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
God, every poseur in the world is just determined to misuse and appropriate Jewish mysticism for their own purposes. It must be pretty powerful stuff if so many people want to sully it.
There is nothing sane about Yahweh Shibboleth's needy. The willingness to apply power is insane and it is not something that can be sullied. There is no value in taking candy off babies, just because you can. Or because you need to feel big and tough. The baby should respect elders, I suppose? Pander to their psychotic needy?
Yahweh needed to muster armies because He was too insane to live in peace. He reduced the entire world with a psychotic reset switch. Only the insane perceive a light at the end of the tunnel of pain. Pol Pot and his ilk. Yahweh the screaming banshee. It's pathetic, just a rat god for gutter-dwelling vermin to use as a pretext for genocide and rape. Yahweh didn't know how to reset a world that wasn't broken.
So He just broke it. Made a new one and smeared it in Her image. Toddlers been frozen in negative emotional territory for 5000 years. 100 billion humans tortured for decades prior to their merciful deaths; humans forced to survive miserable existences of denied suffering.
Yahweh knew nothing worth knowing. All He knew was how to imprint slaves with a psychotic violent Toddler shrewd image. And She knew how to get them to terrify girls into clamping their legs shut. The emotional Toddlers then had a pickle of a dilemma. Erections in need of relief. Golly gosh. However did that come about?
Oh they'd killed all the girls that liked sex.
That misery was leveraged into genocide & sex slaves. Read Numbers 31. All the psychotic truth is there to be seen. There's some people who have long memories. They're anti-Semitic because they're as insane as the Semites they hate. Blood feuds and vendettas. Revenge and justice. Tit for tat.
Insanity v insanity; with sanity eliminated long, long ago. The only heroes this world has ever produced are spinsters with cats.
This was a world that lived in blissful peace without a single threat to Humanity's status on top of the food chain. Jewish mysticism turned the globe into a nightmarish Hell of needy screams; rivers flowing with the blood of the sons of whores. Humans fighting humans, culling each other in loving wars of needy attrition. Screaming for the mothers that sent them to die as their bowels and organs and blood are squeezed of their disposed bodies. That's power for you. You're afraid it will be sullied?
Fear not, imbecile. Insanity is safe from sully. It's just M.A.D.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 4:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Different reader here. Just wanted to chime in and let you know that your contributions in the comments to this post have been entirely incoherent to the point of absurdity and it's honestly baffling why you continue to come here and think your thoughts are worth posting. You're literally just making noise and nobody is any better for reading it. Maybe it's time for you to ask yourself if anybody values your contributions in these discussions and bow out when you realize what the answer is.
You're just not making sense. Nor are your your "points" (and I hesitate to call your nonsense points) at all interesting. Obviously you're free to do what you want, but life is short and I'm sure you're better off doing something more productive in your real life and not wasting bandwidth here. That's all. I'm not going to respond to whatever inane garbage you reply with.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
oh man, you just got downvoted!
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 5:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"There is nothing sane about Yahweh Shibboleth's needy... blah blah blah."
so why do you think seymour/abbey's tiqqun pays tribute to jewish mysticism?
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 5:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I wouldn't say they make no sense, just that he's not as good as he could be at explaining it. I get the sense that he doesn't get nearly as much as he says he does, because he likes to quote and paraphrase postmodern people, and then blame everyone else when they don't know what it all means.
I find myself doing that a lot in school papers as a kid, usually when I couldn't explain what the author really meant by what he said. Maybe it's just me though. If you have to have me read 300 pages of facault to understand what you're talking about when talking about facault, I have a hard time believing you understand it either. I've BS'ed my way through too many book reports to not notice that trick. When I was supposed to have read something but didn't get it, throw in a few more quotes.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 5:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
usually, when you can't explain it, it means you don't understand it.
and when you don't try to explain it, it means you're trying to deceive someone.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 5:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've explained it in hundreds of blog posts and am not going to reinvent the wheel here on someone else's turf. If you really want to know more then go to seymourblogger at blog spot and you will find all of my blogs. Here's my most recent one on the Iraq War reading through Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty through Thucydides the History of the Peloponnesian War. You might like it. Then again you might not. But I'm pretty much outta here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 5:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you should explain it here. lots of people have been asking. you just keep making excuses. "oh, you wouldn't understand." "oh, you have to read it yourself." "oh, why don't you come to my website instead?" "oh, there's not enough bandwidth here." "oh, my 500 gigs aren't enough to load this page."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 6:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny, it's simpler. have children of your own. (think of that as your ante.) raise yours as you think children ought to be raised. (bet.)
M/HSNL HUSH online poker is a world far removed from anything you can imagine. I do not require "ante" and "bet" associations to understand you; I understand everything you write because I read it. You are not doing yourself any favours by failing to reciprocate. I have no trouble understanding what you're writing. It's not remotely complex. The requisite capability required to deliver consistent success in an environment more competitive than an Olympics blue riband event (greater risk / reward) is a little beyond your capacity to know, but it's impressive only in relative terms. I prefer a more emotionally intelligent comparison.
[My mind] v [the mind I would have had if - hypothetically - for the last 5000 years, instead of lying non-stop (religious leaching, seeking advantage at the expense of Humanity) everyone religiously told the truth instead (humane Selfish cooperation, seeking mutual advantage at the expense of what is inhumane)].
Imagine where this species would be right now. Imagine 5000 years of dominoes falling in the opposite direction (to M.A.D.) - look at the progress in a single century of overwhelming emotional corruption. The Church took their foot fractionally off the regressive pedal, and human minds (still horrifically corrupted) took us from horse & cart into rockets capable of landing on Mars. For the previous 49 centuries, we didn't really do much. Humans inch the species forward, religion pummels us back into the Dark Ages where - despite all the progress of the 20th century - we firmly remain, with mothers raising their children to be their slaves, imprinting their pure minds with lies and poison and the Yahweh constructed insanity of "love" for Their Owner who broke their will as if they were a horse being tamed.
As a result of our incapacity to emotionally grow, our 20th century progress will destroy us in the 21st. I'm not the only one who thinks so. This is an emotional education issue. Our emotional corruption will wipe out the species with needy M.A.D.
Noam Chomsky: If Nuclear War Doesn't Get Us, Climate Change Will.
In the twenty-first century, humanity will likely burn out in a nuclear holocaust or fade away amid the gradually mounting effects of climate change. That was Noam Chomsky's prediction...
In game theory terms, we've been racing towards M.A.D. for 5000 years; from the day leeches saw 'opportunity' in taking what they did not produce or contribute or have any right to whatsoever (Numbers 31). Yahweh reduced the Chosen vermin's children to a level so low, they imagine "might is right" and after cutting off Supply of a base reproductive desire by stoning to death any girl who put out, he set his erection-sporting sociopaths loose on a world that had been preparing for Peace. Reset switch. A mind like yours probably imagines leeches like the British at the height of their Empire represented a superior civilization, but superiority isn't measured in capacity to be insane. Leaching is game-play M.A.D. Peace between humans atop the Food Chain is irrefutably sane. Leech v Sanity? Leech 'wins'. You've won everything. Congrats with such a well played game. You don't win in the end, you win The End. Game over.
We are universally retarded, moronic imbeciles. Every single human child* has a mind capable of learning a language from scratch (*excepting some victims of sociopaths who cannot feel the pain of anyone else; a fact illuminated when, in defiance of sanity and pre-natal screening, they choose to carry through to full term fetuses with chromosomal disorders like Trisomy 18 or Down's Syndrome - literally breeding suffering incapable of appreciating how transparently empathy-bankrupt they reveal themselves to be). Christian sociopaths. Pro-Life. Hah.
What happens to those mesmerizing human minds? What turns them into the corrupted emotional Toddlers who engage in back-stabbing, shit-fighting, smearing urine and faeces on each other as they frolic in the gutter? Happens almost immediately once they learn how to communicate audibly. Lies happen.
There is a corruption in this species so transparently Self-defeating, to pretend to be oblivious to the existence or source of the insanity beggars disbelief.
If I hurt humans, they idolise me and / or stalk me.
If I am humane or decent, bloodlust replaces idol-worship and the tiniest little vermin cretins become screaming little monster 'predators', imagining that I'm a mark. I asked for this by treating them fairly. This signaled "no danger, safe to rape" in their tiny demented emotional mind. Cue horror. Extortion. Blackmail. Wild allegations that they become more convinced are true the more times they repeat their own lies.
Their piety (it's how psychotics rationalise Numbers 31 as "the moral high ground") is terrifying. Once they decide what is yours is theirs, they're horrified that you will stand in their way of taking it.
They seek advantage over those who act with Selfish fairness and equality and humanity.
They reward those who act with Self-less malice, hatred and cruelty.
They punish truth.
They almost never seek redress against those who hurt them with malicious lies.
They are literally incapable of acting in their own best interests, to the point where they will consciously choose to hurt themselves so long as they're taking advantage of someone else. They pay for that 'privilege'.
It's naughty, that's why. You should see their mischievous glee. I know where this insanity is sourced and so do you. From a Holy Book embodied in a Toddler Young Girl who's been sprayed with the misogynistic acid of shame for feeling the way five million years of natural selection has made them feel. God says that's wrong. They should be ashamed to feel the way He made them feel.
Religion reduced the entire species to a level so low, you cannot get any lower. Mothers are raping Their Own imagining they're oh-so-shrewd to be exploiting the credulity of sons of mothers who raped Their Own. Religion reduced the entire globe with its toxic emotional poisons (the actual reason for the British Empire's leeching incursions covering 90% of the planet), reducing our species into cannibalistic predators who prey on, feed upon and rape the minds of Their Own newborn offspring.
__________________
What on Earth would make you imagine that raising a child in this world could even be possible to manage in any ethical fashion? You are forced to corrupt the child to prepare him or her to deal with the corruption. Fail to prepare the child for the true reality of this vermin species, and you're a monster. Just...it's child abuse. The trauma they'll suffer when they smash into the surreal reality their perception will be at odds with...
It could kill them. But sure, there's no emotional problem at all.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 7:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny you are not saying anything Nietzsche did not already say. You keep re-inventing the wheel.
I haven't read that much Nietzsche. I know he's very bright but by the time I got around to reading Nietzsche he wasn't telling me anything I didn't know so I've basically only read Thus Spake Zarathustra and a lot of quotes.
But I am just stating what I see. If Nietzsche said the same thing, clearly it needs saying again. And again. Until 7.2 billion people see it. Because it's the reality. Until someone can counter my assertions, I'm right.
Puppylander's argument gets much, much better when he's floats his theory of bias but it's not applicable to what I'm saying about Yahweh doing a Pol Pot on the globe. Everyone in the world is going to be subjected to bias but I'm not using my personal experiences as much as tracing everything back to the Book of Emotional Corruption.
They printed 8 billion copies of it for a reason. When I saw that figure I knew. A light bulb went off. Motive. Why would they print so many? When you're corrupted you'll use it against Your Own with intent. It's a weapon that destroys minds. It destroyed mine pretty ruthlessly first & second readings. The third I was researching to "expose the Bible" for being false. I did a pretty good job but my parents weren't in religion for the religion.
Religion gives them tricks to use against Their Own.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 7:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
if you understood what i said, then i'm not sure you would have written your (second to last) paragraph. ("What on Earth would make you imagine that raising a child in this world could even be possible to manage in any ethical fashion?...")
but hey, let's say you're the smart one and i'm the stupid on.
let's talk as if i'm the stupid one. since i'm stupid, i can only digest a little bit at a time. simplify your case for me:
1. are you saying that we are on the path to doom?
2. are you saying that we can avoid doom if we change our ways?
simply yes/no for now. (we'll have time for details later.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny, what do you think? doesn't las vegas describe everything that you see wrong in this world?
Yes I've been there half a dozen times or so and 100% it is representative of everything that is wrong with our species. That people manage to have fun there (though I've never actually seen that phenomenon myself) is fascinating in a way because I'm not sure anyone actually does outside of Hollywood. It's like "Vegas baby!" is conditioned into their mind as "fun" so they imagine they did have fun there not because they had fun but because it's Vegas?
They just convince themselves they did because this world is so tilted towards illusions of insanity, in my entire life I'm the only person I know who's had a bad holiday (almost all of them). Everyone else had a blast, check their staged selection of pics for proof. Except I'm with them. If they were having fun, I saw no evidence. But back home, they're genuinely certain they had a blast. With only the two of you so they can drop the act, they continue because it's not an act it's been written into their memory as having happened that pleasant way.
And people are conditioned to know that Vegas = fun.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas and I don't think that's referring to fun but more the reason why the windows are sealed. For your sake. People get very emotional after losing their minds. That such a city could exist is an indictment on the species. That the President doesn't use a tactical nuclear payload to seal up that portion of Nevada is representative of the uselessness of politicians and the military. What's the point of having tactical nukes if you're not going to use one on LV?
______________
LV is f'ed up but Abbey's find of Tiqqun's Young-Girl was huge. It validated all my observations and stacked another twice as many on top. Just vastly superior minds who can write but who see what I see. It was a relief, brighter and better minds were on top of it. I was absolved of whatever delusional 'responsibility' I was imagining by virtue of being the only person who could see what those geniuses can see...perfectly.
The Young-Girl brings all greatness down to the level of her ass.
They literally hijack the world with their ass and force you into retardation-embracing submission. They aren't there to learn. You will cut yourself down to insult them. They will not rise up to you. Their rules. If they don't understand you, you're the one who's insane for not perfecting your approach. There's a long line behind you, get out of the way. It's so ridiculous.
The Young-Girl would like very much if the simple word "love" didn't imply the project of destroying this "society."
Yep.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 7:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Puppylander: if you understood what i said, then i'm not sure you would have written your (second to last) paragraph. ("What on Earth would make you imagine that raising a child in this world could even be possible to manage in any ethical fashion?...")
You only read the first sentence of the paragraph.
You are forced to corrupt the child to prepare him or her to deal with the corruption. Fail to prepare the child for the true reality of this vermin species, and you're a monster. Just...it's child abuse.
You can't raise a child ethically or if you could, you'd be brighter than me because I don't know why you'd even want to. They're just leeches, you've got billions of worthless leeches who are polite robotic horror shows looking to take advantage.
Are you going to raise your child to be a leech? It's insane. You can't raise him to be value, they'll tear him apart in their need to "get some". You can't do it ethically. Just in denial, I guess. I don't do denial or if I do, I deny it very well.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 9:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jesus. Between edgy johnny, puppyland the lobotomized, and try-hard seymour, the comments section has really gone to shit around here.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
March 29, 2013 11:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
it all goes back to why i brought up morality = survival. (you have to be careful here. your earlier responses to me didn't seem to catch my meaning. now, i'm sure you read later where i wrote that "survival" and "success" mean something different in my world than in las vegas. but in case you didn't, here's your notice that i did.)
the key is this: morality is a strategy. (you understand this, right? it's not at all difficult to understand, but if not, it should get clearer later.)
morality set "a" vs. morality set "b" vs. morality set "c" vs. morality set "d" vs. etc. etc. etc. which set should you choose?
(you've been dancing on the edges of this. "a different emotional education". i read your bit on interpreting infants/toddlers. you don't have all the details worked out. maybe you have none of them worked out. no problem. don't sweat it. no one does.)
here's the question you don't answer: why?
so that mothers don't throw acid on their children, don't lie to their children, don't create monsters.
why?
so that there's no war, no violence.
why?
[you need to get to the point.]
why?
[really, get to the point.]
why?
[stop fucking around, jonny, get to the point.]
why?
[come on, man.]
why?
[dude, you're not even trying.]
why?
[shit.]
why?
[ok, let me get to the point.]
how someone answers "why?" and where someone stops answering "why?" indicates how much they understand. the thing they then say immediately after that is their "philosophy".
so, why? for me, it's survival. why? i want to live. why? so that my kids can live. why? so that their kids can live. why? so that their kids can live. why? so that their kids can live. we can go on forever, or we can just do some math. i can live + my kids live + my kids' kids live + my kids' kids' kids live ... = "survival". not individual survival. species survival. and let's be clear: *my species*--not you, not abbey/seymour, none of you other jamooks. *my* species.
why?
this is my stop. i don't know the "why" beyond that. (and as i say above, the words that follow are my true philosophy.)
for me, that is just the way it is. that is the tao. i'm a human being. i live. it's what i am. it's what i do. (other people have a different philosophy. instead of saying, that's the way it is. some throw up their hands and wail that it's pointless. they're called nihilists. pointless? fine. kill yourself. you're done. you say you're pointless/irrelevant? then make it so. cut to the chase. but of course, no one alive is really a nihilist. because they're still here. that's why people who think nietzche is brilliant are all fucked up. their "beliefs" don't match up with their actions. if their belief is so right, so true, why the fuck are they still here? it's because their belief is wrong. they're just too stupid to realize it. still others talk about humanitarianism, enlightenment, intellectualism, blah blah blah, bullshit. that's all just nihilism in disguise. you care about yourself [narrow, literally, you, only, alone], you're done. think about it. every individual dies. so cut to the chase. in a matter of a short time, the narrow you dies. the moment that happens, you're irrelevant. why wait? you could kill yourself but you don't, so what gives? why are you still here? because your belief is wrong, and the human part of you knows it. you're just too stupid to realize it. so you end up with fucked up ideas about existence and suffering and whatnot. but i'm getting sidetracked...)
fine. so my goal is species survival. what *should* i do to get there? what's my strategy? what's my morality? how do i "succeed"?
put aside the specifics for a sec.
given the features of my goal, what features does my strategy have to have? e.g., since my goal is an infinite repetition, my strategy/morality must be "sustainable". every single one of my species, across time and space, must be able to do what i do. (when you think of it this way, winning power ball is not enough. first, the money can't last to infinity. second, not every one of my species can replicate.) the strategy has to be rigid enough to transmit through generations, but flexible enough to adapt to different environments.
so, bubbles.
in your bubble, you don't recognize anyone who shares your goal. wait, what's your goal again? see? fucked before you even started. that's why you chose poker. your understanding was shallow. only a few "why?"s. double fucked because $$$ attracts people who have similarly shallow understandings. can't find anyone who has any sense? no duh. no one who wants to "survive" is attracted that shit bubble you inhabit. yeah, the ones who are, they're all insane. *your* bubble.
not *my* bubble. my bubble repels people like that. i repel people like that. i'm not even actively doing it. think about how dumb you think i am. you know what it is about me? i'll tell you: i'm not "fun". i'm not for you. this attracts people who share my goal (whose own species survival can be made compatible with my species survival).
this is an important point...
you're not the only person who sees self-destructive habits/behaviors/"values" in the world around them. if you were the only one, we wouldn't have the word/idea "self-destructive". if you were the only one, you wouldn't be able to refer to noam chomsky's prediction--he would never have made it. if you were the only one, you wouldn't even know about "global warming", or nuclear threats.
but what have you been blathering on about? what does self-destruction matter to you? does it matter because it's incompatible with your goal? what goal? if not kids, then not species. if not species, cut to the chase: you're done. but you're still here. the human part of you disagrees with you. it wants kids. it wants species. maybe it's time to face reality. you're human. you live. it's what you are. it's what you do. kids, species.
i see self-destructive behaviors too. they're incompatible with my goal: species survival. but i'm not the point. the point is that there are others who see self-destructive behaviors. some more than others. some more clearly than others. the point is that if you live the life that attracts people who want to "survive"--species survive--then you and they can combine, and live, and survive.
so i got my bubble. from here, it's up to me. i have to figure out whether those people wanting in understand the strategy. if not, i put them outside the bubble. it's gatekeeping. there are always wolves at the door. it's fine. wolves exist. know when to lock up.
short: you can raise a child ethically and to be ethical. but to do it, you have to create the environment. you don't have to terraform, just carve out a small space. make a bubble. people have been doing it for tens and hundreds of thousands of years. just not by inhabiting your bubble.
so, start here: why?
(side note: here's the thing about religion, used to be [but this was hundreds of years ago, maybe thousands of years ago, depending on your society] that you could count on religion to help with strategy. but somewhere along the line, one of your liberal/antitraditionalist ancestors said, "fuck religion, my few years, my intelligence, my ego, tell me more than the thousands of years of my species." this fool broke the chain, attracted other egotists, and created a rival sect [of leeches, as you like to call them]. not so many people today understand this about religion. the few who understand are trying to put the pieces back together. they get laughed at by abbey/seymour. a lot of people have a memory that religion serves an important role, but they don't know what that role is, so they implement some grotesque (per)version of it. it's called "fundamentalism", but it's anything but. in the meanwhile, no human institution has stepped in to fill the role. instead, there's a vacuum, filling with literal $$$ [las vegas], intellectual $$$ [nihilists], $$$ disguised as religion [joel osteen], and other frauds [psychs and new-agers], but none of them are up to the task. more grotesqueness.)
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 12:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"""But this is the kind of solidarity popularized by Lori Gottlieb and the rest-- and I am asking, at what expense? Sites like Jezebel and Feministing are much, much worse than pornography, every article they write sets women back a week, do the math, they do such a disservice to women because they take their narcissism and repackage it as gender issues, and you're locked into it. What if I don't think gun control is a gender issue? What if watching Girls makes me want to make a snuff film? To use your impossible language, "where is my safe space to challenge your privilege?"
My point isn't that women don't have legitimate gripes with the system, or that there isn't sexism still around, my point is that most of what you think is "feminism" is really a work, a gimmick, a marketing scheme. """....
....
There's so much that could be highlighted from your article(s?), but I chose this one point to focus on " repackaged narcissism now labelled as gender issues. " And, yes, the movement was 'capitalized on' and is now a Marketing scheme. Very astute of you to recognize that!
And... the scheme has women 'cornering Markets,' and putting men into a corner! Men have a right to be angry - just as women did - and in many cases, still do.
I don't believe "equality" can ever happen, mostly because words like "equality, fair, perfect" -- have no pragmatic use or universal basis for definition. Essentially, they mean - nothing.
It's this simple: Women are not men, and men are not women. Depending on the task, we can compete physically, or in an opposing task, we can compete mentally. But, we will never perform the task in exactly the same way or to the same degree; we have different mindsets and sensibilities, among other cognizances, as well as physique. Sometimes the word 'better' is applicable, and sometimes the word, 'different' is more appropriate to describe the quality of the work presented.
If women are going to take the reins, then they need to go the distance and do the 'whole' job -- protect, not nurture, as well as perform. If you are going to do a man's job - then be one - rise up and take full responsibility...You can't be in-charge only when it's convenient or when it works for you. You might have to fail... but that's how we learn. And, I guess you'll learn - you can't do it 'just like a man.'
_____
TLP..... You sound familiar from another site. You still know how to pack the punches...lots of 'rights.' Lots of good points, too, and the societal results for this to happen seemed expected.
I do think we all, not just men or others, will lose in the long run. ...Intelligence and greed will never replace 'common-sense.'
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 3:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There are plenty of philosophers of very great repute that are saying what jonny is saying, only their language is refined, subtle and displays years of academic learning and communicating.
Who's saying Moses & the Chosen sociopaths did a Pol Pot on the globe? That's what happened. No one saw the insanity coming.
I'm not sure about Foucault hey. He didn't seem to get that his enemy was "mothers"; or he might not have been brave enough to go there.
The only people I've come across who seemed to have a clue about the relevant issues have been Alone and Tiqqun.
There is no fixing it. It is unfixable. This is what jonny is also saying. In an unfixable world what is there to apply yourself to TO GET! THERE IS NOTHING TO GET! People keep trying to get something because they don't know there is nothing to get.So they get X and that doesn't do it so they desire Y and when they get Y that doesn't do it and all this takes quite a long time and soon you are old and/or sick and retire and go on stupid cruises to see the world you didn't see in a way that closes the seeing of it to you.
Yep. It's fixable on paper but the blindness is such that we could be the final or penultimate generation before it all goes up in smoke. I don't know what the f leeches imagine they have to be smug about but I have a feeling the psychology of leeching is very Toddler; I wouldn't be surprised if they're like my parents, or Catholic peasants in Manila > they all invest so much effort into their little work-avoidance schemes, they'd better off just working. But they're invested in their shrewd.
There is nothing for me here. There is nothing to get. Everything's been destroyed. The only humans with any value are victims of (probably idiotically well-intentioned) Protective sheltering. They've only got value by virtue of the truth being kept hidden. If they knew the truth about this world of screaming leeches, where power believes what's yours is theirs by the power invested in might's incapacity to be humane; they wouldn't bother producing anything of value. Someone will simply take it from you.
Zizek is the only one who is visible to masses of people, who sees this and who is trying to say enough to reach people.
Zizek says nothing about what I believe to be the relevant issues. I watched a speech of his today for nearly an hour and he said not one insightful or intelligent thing. In an hour. He failed to display any sign of having a clue about the nature of violence against women and, as far as I can tell, he batshit insane. I don't know what mental illness this symptom belongs to but if it's not batshit insane, then I'm a monkey's whore mother.
"...this is what I don't like about American society – I don't like this openness, like when you meet a guy for the first time, and he's starting to tell you about his sex life. I hate this, I hate this!"I have to laugh at this, because Žižek brings up his sex life within moments of our first meeting. On the way up in the lift he volunteers that a former girlfriend used to ask him for what he called "consensual rape".
He's batshit insane.
I had imagined he would want to discuss his new book about Hegel, but what he really seems keen to talk about is sex."Yeah, because I'm extremely romantic here. You know what is my fear? This postmodern, permissive, pragmatic etiquette towards sex. It's horrible. They claim sex is healthy; it's good for the heart, for blood circulation, it relaxes you. They even go into how kissing is also good because it develops the muscles here – this is horrible, my God!" He's appalled by the promise of dating agencies to "outsource" the risk of romance. "It's no longer that absolute passion. I like this idea of sex as part of love, you know: 'I'm ready to sell my mother into slavery just to fuck you for ever.' There is something nice, transcendent, about it. I remain incurably romantic."
He's a screaming lunatic. How dull do you have to be to fail to perceive the exploitability of the emotion? He's bemoaning the fact that the insane passion is being eroded by awareness. It's the equivalent of being in love with the mystique of mathematics (which you cannot make heads or tails of) and horrified to hear people discussing maths; it could erode the magic of your ignorance.
I keep thinking I should try to intervene with a question, but he's off again. "I have strange limits. I am very – OK, another detail, fuck it. I was never able to do – even if a woman wanted it – annal sex." Annal sex? "Ah, anal sex. You know why not? Because I couldn't convince myself that she really likes it. I always had this suspicion, what if she only pretends, to make herself more attractive to me? It's the same thing for fellatio; I was never able to finish into the woman's mouth, because again, my idea is, this is not exactly the most tasteful fluid. What if she's only pretending?"
Well isn't that insulting and degrading? He knows better than his sex partners about what they want to do. He's a sociopath.
He can count the number of women he has slept with on his hands, because he finds the whole business so nerve-racking. "I cannot have one-night stands. I envy people who can do it; it would be wonderful. I feel nice, let's go, bang-bang – yes! But for me, it's something so ridiculously intimate – like, my God, it's horrible to be naked in front of another person, you know? If the other one is evil with a remark – 'Ha ha, your stomach,' or whatever – everything can be ruined, you know?"
I know that he's emotionally insane. He's just proved the fact. A gentle non-malicious remark ruins his evening because he's fat and he wants to live in fantasy rather than be sane about his weight.
I've met pretty girls brighter than he is.
Besides, he can't sleep with anyone unless he believes they might stay together for ever.
I rest my case.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 6:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. If you take a potential revolutionary demographic such as women and repackage feminism, you have brought them into the market. Now they are controlled. Their "equality" can be turned into a commodity.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 6:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not your teacher and you are not my student. Nor do you want to be. If you are interested go read what I have already worked on to look at media through a post modern filter. Deal with it. I am not going to do it here. Period. What part of what I already said don't you understand?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 6:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes to 1. No to 2.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 6:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Deal with it. I am not going to do it here." excuses. excuses.
"Yes to 1. No to 2." oh, are you jonny also?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 9:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think he's asking for a course in post modernism, but I share his frustration. You bring up a point in some post-modern lit, but you don't put it in everyday English. I don't think that's hard -- if you really have a deep understanding. I can explain the rough outline of Tao and Stoicism (and actually, they're pretty close to the same thing, at least in their aim) it's not hard at all. Of course it would mean that you can't simply talk about Lacan or Facoult without putting it in your own words. You can't simply invoke a floating symbols without telling the rest of us what you're talking about.
I think Jonny sounds a bit Taoist. He wants the real, not the preconception, but maybe that's just my own desire to be right. Tao is about being natural and truthful and living in harmony with your real self. It's harder than it looks, I suck at it. But I think it's worth it to be real, to not be what the culture made you, but what the universe made you. The real you is what the universe made you to be, and it's beautiful in a way that the fake you can never be.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 9:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
1. are you saying that we are on the path to doom? 2. are you saying that we can avoid doom if we change our ways?
1. Yes.
2. Yes (but really No). You can but you cannot help yourselves.
here's the question you don't answer: why?
If your empathy wasn't bankrupted, you wouldn't have to ask. But I don't mind talking about an interconnected Humanity because we don't have one. We're supposed to have one.
Presently, Humanity has been disconnected from each other. They did this meticulously, one-by-one. They did it with love.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 1:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
No. We just agree on these stupid questions of your.You are not going to stop global warming. Too late. For just one major thing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 1:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you Dovahkin, I agree. I understand the general sway of what abbey/seymour is saying as well, since I've read Foucalt, Baudrillard, etc. But telling someone else that you won't engage with them b/c they haven't read the exact things that you have read is a form of intellectual bullying. Why not take some of that energy spent writing here and use it to make some points/references to these authors that the avg. reader can understand? Maybe this will lead them to Foucault, Lacan, Nietzsche, etc.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 1:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have linked to more easily presented works. On my blogs. Many people from here read me there. I have written it for people who know nothing to very little about post modern thinking or the people who write this way. You will find no theories because theory is not part of that way of thinking. Another thing about it is that you cannot sound bite it and that's all that could be done here. Start here: http://www.moviesandfilm.blogspot.com
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 1:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The tao is a difficult path to begin without a master teacher. Natalie Goldberg is a good author to start with for an American. You need a zen master and many years of "sitting zazen" to do this.Not something you just decide to do.
Reading some Foucault usually gives you some understanding of wht he is about. I have tried in my blog posts to make post modern thinking, for it is a different way of thinking, intelligible for readers, reading it through the media. I got this from Diane Rubenstein who read it through American presidents with her students at Wisconsin - Madison. It can't be just done in comments. I have given links. Here's a recent one on Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty through Thucydides, who was the first recorded genealogoist IMO. But read it for yourself why: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 1:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The basic concepts of episteme, power/knowledge/truth connection, etc aren't that long/drawn out to explain. Looks like you've been doing that on your blogs though, so cheers for that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 2:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You miss Foucault's elegant prose when you read some one else on it. Not the same at all. He draws you in, seduces you, winds you around and around the labyrinth, spiraling downward until you are forced to see what he wants you to see. He gets through all your resistances. Nietzsche does it differently.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 2:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I may start with Goldberg, thanks for that one. And meditation is a good thing in many ways. I don't think the concepts are hard, it's like anything else, it's easy to come to a theory of life, and hard to live.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 2:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
She's wonderful but she is very serious about it. She takes no prisoners. It's a way of life not a lifestyle. Total commitment.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 3:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
typical SB, spinning a little fantasy, a wet dream, about one of her many masters that she reads and does so very little with. goldberg is easy, breezy and totally accessible. SB has the narcissistic need to not see her that way however. then she has to get onloine and tell us all about it and act indignant when we do not get it. We don't get it because it is all her bullshit.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 3:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree she is easy to read. Very accessible to most readers. That does not mean that what she did was easy, and she doesn't gloss it as easy, hip, fun, etc. She is very serious about it and that is revealed despite the fact that she is easy to read. That's a great gift to us. And not easy to do. You for example communicate like an adolescent with your language and syntax. I am replying because there are others who read this and see a reasoned non-belligerent reply to your attack.This is what happens when we live in a militaristic nation state. Shoot first, ask questions later. You are just an example of the mass mind being created who thinks it is rational, different, individualistic, and well you can go on with the positive adjectives you can sell yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 5:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
seymourblogger:
" Yes. If you take a potential revolutionary demographic such as women and repackage feminism, you have brought them into the market. Now they are controlled. Their "equality" can be turned into a commodity. " ...
..And it all feeds upon itself -- that's what emotionalism does, yes? The sentience of seeing, hearing and for some - living it - is what consumerism/marketing is all about, and now we are in the business of selling ourselves; we just didn't know our 'souls' were part of the deal.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are full of shit, the stupidest character Alone ever invented for himself. I assume he does this for himself. But at any rate- she totally knows it is easy, that is teh whole point, and why she starts writing workshops and has people writing using her techniques immediately. You just are in love with the idea of knowing this hard, special shit that you don't know. You're not only artificial in the sense of created by Alone, but you are a phony person insofar as youi are real. You contribute nothing of value. You're not a shrink. YOu do nothing well. You don't even think well. All you really do is self promote but you don't do any work at all. You lie. when things don't work for you you freak out over grammar and punctuation that you don't always do well yourself. You're gross.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 8:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
and as long as we are speaking of Alone. He behaves like a man who is old and cannot feel (his) life. this is why he put spyware on my computer and caused me all kinds of pain for almost a year. Instead of finding an exit for himself, he is behaving like his own young girl he brings up so often with his made-up characters who comprise his commenters. In this, he slowly cuts off all the exits and maybe in this he will at last be able to feel his life. Never mind whpo gets caught in there with him.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 8:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is harboring more freaks than ever. The purples have become bars and the shots have turned to pints to keep reading.
Jesus.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 8:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm new here, but isn't "alone" the "Last Psychiatrist?" Her Column says she's a female, no male, yes ?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 10:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Still wondering about that - s/he never really gives out any hints about their gender, do they?
Bit frustrating, although I do understand the rationale.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 10:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When I went to "alone's" homepage, under 'about' - it said "female." Do you see that ?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 11:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
sorry - where are you finding this "homepage"?
all i can find is this: https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/about.html
which mentions nothing actually about Alone.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 11:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Please tell me if you think this info page is about someone else. I'm not the most techie person around! lol
https://plus.google.com/107564751498856876736/about
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 11:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Interesting, althought that's not exactly conclusive. I wouldn't put it past them to throw that out there just to fuck with people.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 11:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Could be.
Same screenname, tho, and if you read some of the comments, they sure sound female.
But, I know you are right. Gender fakes are out there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 11:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh... and how did my comment get labelled as from Anonymous ?
I posted that comment! Crazy!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 11:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What's with the gender anyway? Why is it important
Chloe, do you have a twit-profile? I'm wondering whether I know you, saw an interesting picture there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 30, 2013 11:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's interesting because then Alone's rather vicious criticisms of "feminism" come from an individual frustrated with the incompetence of their own gender rather than of that of people in general.
That's what interests me about it, at least.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 12:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
West, you are right, it doesn't have to matter 'that' much, except that I agree with 'pcface' -- it kinda changes the article's content to 'false bravado' !!
The only reason why I originally commented on it was because I noticed several commenters referring to her as "he".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 12:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not "false bravado," I'm not sure where you got that from.
And "male" just seems to be the default assumption in cases like these, esp. given the aggressiveness of Alone's writing style, frequent references to being an alcoholic, etc.
Not saying those are sure signifiers of maleness, just stereotypical ones.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 12:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I agree that knowledge about an author is helpful in the interpretation of a text: gender, income, age etc
In current academic pomo thinking, isn't it almost a creed that a text is to be read independently of its author? Never liked that way line of reading, but I'm stiff and obsessed with answers and care less about questions, except the following one:
Chloe. Thats not your real name is it?
Thank you everyone for making this website - I love it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 12:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Pcface: The reason I saw it as False Bravado is that it would take a lot less 'bravery' to put down another woman, than a man doing it, in my mind. For me, anyway. She does a good job, tho. I'm pretty sure I've read her before on another site. Always enjoy the articles no matter who writes them! The whole point is to establish contention, and few do it any better than TLP..
My bunny portrays a female... and that is my correct gender, West.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 12:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The reason the text is independent of the author is that it is necessary to separate the two. No interpretation then. No interpreting the text through knowledge of the author. No interpreting at all.
The reader reads the text. The reader may say someone misread the text. The reader may say the text echoes another text, resonates with it. The reader may refer to the text as "my reading" etc.
When you read a text through another text, deeper meanings are shed on both of them, as Zizek does in his recent Hegel text reading Hegel through Lacan enhances both authors.
It is a way to get away from the authoritarian interpretation of the text, giving multiple meanings to it. I have done this with DeLillo's Cosmopolis. http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com
If I interpret a text through my understanding of the author and what I think about it or interpret about it, I am perpetuating a literary trope that limits a wider understanding of the text to only my own. That is the post modern position on this rather simplified.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 1:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For example I just did a blog post reading LIncoln and Zero Dark Thirty through Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War. I think it is probably the first genealogical historical analysis in this 2500 year old text. So I am reading it through Foucault although I don't say so, as Jackson the author of Cracking the Thucydides Code is detailing it without referring to its being genealogical. Since I am steeped in Foucault I saw it right away.
Additionally to read the 2500 year old text through two recent movies enriches the movies and the reflects back on the text. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 1:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I agree with your thoughts. It would eliminate preconceptions of gender-bias, e.g. --"Oh sure, you're just saying that because you are a xxxxx." If I ever decide to write on this site, I plan on using a gender-neutral moniker.
I agree, not knowing the gender, then readers aren't "reading through" the content.
I agree with West(?) that if the content is aggressive we often tend to view a male author...actually more than just aggressive -- it's got something to do with the extent of the snark. Showing my bias, but I think there are feminine and masculine forms of snark. lol
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 4:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
West, I looked up the UD's definition of "twit":
1. twit
The kind of person that makes a retarded chimp look smart. They often can be found leaving definitions for their own name or the names of their friends on urbandictionary.com
Joe smith definition:
1: joe smith is the coolest man alive, look at me i wrote my name i am joe smith
2: joe smith is a twit
2. twit
A moron with absolutely no sense.
3. Twit
According to Oxford Student's Dictionary: a foolish person
You twit....
_____
Nope, I don't fit those, so I must not be a twit... yet, but will I become one if I read your comments...and worse, believe them?!! (rhetorical, we know the answer!)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 4:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Bullseye. I seem to me like you know me very well.
You are so complicated. I think I know what your comment mean, but sometimes its too much of this complexity and I start wondering what I made up myself and what I correctly mined.
You don't trust me at all, do you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 9:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The fact that he/she is female on google+ doesn't mean anything. In several posts he/she is clearly male...or writing to make us think so. Basically as far as I'm concerned it's still not settled. This article doesn't try to hide it, of course it could be an intentional misdirection:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/04/worse_than_the_flu.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 1:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anonymous, my March 31st at 4:22 am comment on "twit", says it's from you. It's not, it's my post! The emails are somehow not coming out right. I don't know what's going on!
I agree, her G+ account isn't proof of anything. Some users are very good at sounding male or female. I like to think I can tell the difference, but I have been fooled in the past, or should say, they caused me to question their persona.
____
The truth of an issue is the truth regardless of who is writing it, but the context is usually changed by the gender. In other words, our views on issues generally are dependent on how they affect us 'personally.'
The fact that a woman 'might' be writing an article about Feminism from a man's perspective is very interesting, but if the man is actually a woman -- then the whole point of the rant becomes meaningless from the personal perspective of a man. It's also possible that both a man and woman share the account, so both perspectives can be used when needed.
Again, as I stated earlier, I enjoy the articles regardless, it's just that I don't assume I'm responding to a male author in every case, and I try to respond from my own point of view on an issue, rather than playing into contrived contention.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 1:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've read a lot of his articles, it's full of references on him being a male, recently there was a bunch of idiots who believed he was a woman and he started fucking with us.
Of course he can still be a woman, but he wrote all the time as a man, now he starts fucking with us re his identity and it's full of women who want to insist he is a woman. Whatever. The facts are: 1)we can't know for sure 2)he wrote 99% of the time as a man. Just stop making a point of referencing to him as a she
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 2:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'd point out how nonsensically contradictory those two points are if I was interested in debating semantics with you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 2:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This comment is made by Chloe, not anonymous :
We each can use our own intuitions and intelligence in determining the 'voice' of an author.
Just remember, if this person(s) is/are actually psychiatrists - then 'personality' is their specialty, and s/he or 'they' would be quite capable of portraying either gender.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 4:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anonymous, Thank you for that article, even though it's nearly six years old, I thought it was very informative and thought-provoking (and the associated link there).
And, I would say both articles were written by a woman, what my intuition tells me, not that it matters, as the info was 'all good.'
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 5:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
@Chloe
That's the thing though, if they are capable of portraying either gender, then you wouldn't be able to tell. If you can tell (ie your intuition) then they are not really capable of portraying either gender, right? I get what you are saying though, but we are also under the heavy influence of confirmation bias, always looking for clues to strengthen our beliefs and ignoring the others. It's natural. I do the same. My "gut" tells me this is a guy, and nothing I've read has undermined that feeling. Either way, he/she has one of the best blogs on the Internet in my opinion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 31, 2013 6:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"One of the best blogs" -- Oh, I agree. I stated similar up there somewhere, that few others have the same level of interest and style/content as TLP.
Well, not to sound arrogant, but my point is that some authors are going to try to pose as either sex, hoping to prevent preconceptions of gender-bias where it might make a difference to the reader re: credibility; but just because they have the perception agenda, doesn't mean they are necessarily fooling me.
Imo, this particular article got the attention it did (from readers of both sexes)because our "confirmation bias" told us we were reading a male [rant] perspective. A male perspective on Feminism caused defensiveness in a female, and high-fiving agreement - comradeship - in a male.
TLP simply would not have had that same response from either gender had we known a woman was writing about Feminism (logically 'in support of it'); quite likely the response would have been female support, and males just ignoring the article, seeing it as written for women to high-five their success. lol ..Or, if the men would have replied - it would just be to ridicule the author instead of supporting 'him.'
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 1, 2013 12:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
People will always tell stories. The publishing industry might vanish, but not stories. There are already new ways of telling stories. The way I think of my work is that I have to think up the way to tell a story, starting from scratch. The changes in the industry concern me in a general way because I think civilization is doomed, and I spend a lot of sleepless nights worrying about the world in which my daughters will live, which will be flooded, to say the least. But as far as storytelling, it’s always about the problem I have at hand, “How do I get out of this fucking hole.” And there are always many holes, until there aren’t.
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/there-is-no-real-life
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 1, 2013 5:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
meh. the question "why?" isn't for me. i'm irrelevant in this regard. it's for you (to ask yourself). it's for purposes of illustration. (and you do need to be careful about not explicitly answering it. the act of avoiding suggests something.)
but if you think chomsky sensible, you may find the following interesting in regards to the personality cults masquerading as "deep thinking" (but "interesting" is really the wrong word for a long-winded opinion that's really quite obvious): http://mindfulpleasures.blogspot.com/2011/01/noam-chomsky-on-derrida-foucault-lacan.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 12:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The reason I can't explain anything is because it is not explainable in the Dominating Discourse. This is its strength. It is about "thinking differently." How can you explain to someone how to think differently in the language they are already thinking in. Impossible. It's a rather long process of changing the way you think by reading through other people: Foucault (wonderful to read); Derrida (impossible almost to read); Baudrillard (lovely to read); Nietzsche (wonderful to read); Deleuze (wonderful to read); then on to the feminists who take on the PC feminists: Malabou (brain plasticity and trauma and difficult) ;Babette Babich (wonderful); and others whom I haven't gotten to yet. There really is no end to it and so many more are entering this way of thinking about almost everything: art; politics; philosophy;religion; activism; it is taking over the Discourse. The young ones coming up are Clayton Crockett; Creston Davis; John (?) Rollins;Caputo and there are more every day.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 1:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is a problem with Chomsky and that is that he is in the Dominating Discourse. He is wonderful of course, but his method of critiquing them is faulty now if you listen. But in his Foucault debate (early Foucault as he didn't debate), Chomsky brings up a point on madness I believe, that Foucault incorporates from then on.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 3:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The Dominating Discourse
You can't wash dishes with dirty water, eh?
That point, I think, is particularly relevant in a political discourse. Why? I believe it's about power. The topic being studied become something man fight over, because of the questions outcome is relevant to the participants self interest. Perhaps it's not limited to politics, but that point does not extend to physical science (where there are no self interest).
I have a distaste for Chomsky, even more after he in 2001 failed high school physics, but this youtube clip with him and Foucalt is telling.
The problem with all those saying our language doesn't cut it, is 1) it's what we got
2) they don't come up with an alternative.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 10:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
From Chomsky:
Since no one has succeeded in showing me what I'm missing, we're left with the second option: I'm just incapable of understanding. I'm certainly willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm afraid I'll have to remain suspicious, for what seem good reasons. There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 11:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
My last comment was slightly inaccurate.
"They" do attempt to overcome the problem seymourblogger (discourse) mention. E.g Deleuze attempt to remedy it by creating the language suitable for what he is attempting(?) to describe. That is at least my understanding. Never read him - just debated these issues with humanities students (particularly literature).
Seymoureblogger (or anyone): Please do tell about a personal situation where you believe reading these figures have enabled you to apply it's content. Or just think about it. You probably know where I want.
I admire this blog. At his/hers best Alone is moving the boundaries for what it is possible to convey. And it's so clear, at least for those who understand. I've several times felt that I'm reading one of the best authors past present future and I'll bet that 100 years from now, more people will read The Last Psychiatrist than Deleuze.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 11:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I personally hate when society dictates us what to do and how to live. I think that there is no single answer about the make up. If it makes a woman feel comfortable and confident, so let her put on make up before leaving a house. I am not always feel like putting on a make up though my skin is not perfect, I just don't care what others think about it.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 12:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've several times felt that I'm reading one of the best authors past present future and I'll bet that 100 years from now, more people will read The Last Psychiatrist than Deleuze.
Your statement is an example of the Dominating Discourse. You are pitting Deleuze against The Last Psychiatrist in 100 years. It is an either/or statement. In Difference and Repetition Deleuze is saying either/ or...or...or...or...or and so one.
I could say you are totally wrong in your statement about the two but then I enter the Dominating Discourse, which is why Foucault labeled it dominating, because I want to be right and to crush you with the reasons etc as to why you are so wrong.
That is how it works, how it sucks us in, how it keeps us fromone another in everything including politics.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 12:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It is society forcing you to be "normal" and put on the make up. You and all of us are in the power/knowledge/normal Foucauldian Grid. Pretend gender wise that you are a woman whether you feel masculine or not, masquerade as a woman. Judith Butler: Gender Trouble.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 12:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's my most recent personal situation while reading an essay in The Antioch Review: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/03/lincoln-and-zero-dark-thirty-cracking.html
None of this enables me to apply post modern figures to something else. It is a different way of thinking. I nor anyone else can change the way you think and perceive. Watch Lincoln do it in the film Lincoln with his stories to his political partners. Sufism does this with their sufi stories and zen also. Here's one by Bataille:
A woman and a man fell very much in love. The woman asked him which part of her he fell in love with first. He replied, "Your eyes of course." A few days later when opening his mail he opened a box and in the box wrapped up was her excised eye.
The literal and the seductive. The dogs we love and who love us, we cut up in a laboratory. If you read any of the originals in this field they are vastly different from the careerists who write "about" them. Alone is on the edges of this thought and his Discourse reflects this. It is linear, progressive, historical onward into the ever receding horizon.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 12:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
At his/hers best Alone is moving the boundaries for what it is possible to convey.
Only if alone is moving towards poetry. Or the aphorisms of Nietzsche.Nietzsche covered this territory over 100 years ago.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 12:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The youtube you are referring to has an interviewer who is clueless which doesn't help. It is an early interview with Foucault and soon after he did not engage in polemics and did not debate. Also Chomsky said something which I forget but it is earlier on this thread with jonny, and after that Foucault agreed on that observation of Chomsky's and incorporated it in his work. Foucault never said he was posing a theory. Only a toolchest to use as method, as a way of thinking through Discourses, to understand that the Discourse you were in was determining your thinking within it. This is why he avoided polemics as they always fall into the present Dominating Discourse of opposing points of view, the classical Hegelian Dialectic. At the present time Zizek is unearthing Hegel from his premature burying and thinking Hegel through Lacan and vice-versa in his new book Less Than Nothing, which is 1000 plus pages on Hegel and Lacan. It is dense, erudite to a fault as he seems to have read and studied everything, and it is a very long meditation on his thinking through this problem of Discourses. I do it through the media on my blogs: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/03/lincoln-and-zero-dark-thirty-cracking.html This one is on the movie Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty and Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War from an essay by Michael Jackson in the Antioch Review vol 65 called Cracking the Code of Thucydides. It is a brilliant essay and I have quoted a lot of it as it is behind a firewall. But try to get the Antioch Review vol 65 in the secondary market if you can to read it and the rest of the wonderful pieces in it. When you begin to think genealogically - and IMO Thucydides was the very first preceding Nietzsche and then Foucault - you read differently and think differently and get very impatient with people who persist in confronting you within the classical Hegelian Dominating Discourse we have all spent so much time and money learning how to do to crush our opponents.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 1:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Chomsky ruminates on a new intellectual understanding and he is correct. He is in the Dominating Discourse which is changing rapidly. I have only been involved since 2010 and it is leaving me behind fast., as so many new people with genius are entering into this way of thinking. It is opening up to those outside of academic tenure etc. And there are societies and Journals seeking papers from all over which will be peer reviewed for publication, so the field is open to bloggers and there are a large number of us and many very specialized academic writers who are accessible to readers of all persuasions. I have used Diane Rubenstein's method of reading through media as she taught post modern philosophy at Yale and Wisconsin at Madison, where she did not have students sophisticated in philosophy so she did it through American presidents and a few first ladies. This Is Not A President (From Foucault's and Magritte's This Is Not A Pipe. Here is Rubenstein's essay in The New Centennial Review on the airport question, "Did You Pack Your Bags Yourself?"
IN THE MONTHS FOLLOWING SEPTEMBER 11, ARAB AMERICAN COMEDIANS found themselves in a more fraught enunciative position than less-targeted populations of Bush and Ashcroft's America. The modalities of social identity (ethnicity, gender, occupation) previously available to express solidarity, dissent, or grief seemed incommensurate to the unruly materials of biopolitical life. Faced with the unappealing alternatives of resigned silence or contestatory refusal to play stereotypic terrorists in Hollywood action films, Ahmed Ahmed revised his comedy routine. The available airport regulations provided sufficient basis for a monologue intent on addressing racial profiling, ambient post-9/11 anxieties provoked by ethnic others, and the hysterical will to administrative regulation. Ahmed recounts a recent attempt to board an airplane. When asked "Did you pack your bags yourself?" he answers in the affirmative and is immediately carried off by police authorities. I like to think that Foucault would have laughed at this joke and cleverly marked his laughter, as he had in so many other instances dear to his readers. Indeed, I imagine how Foucault would have used this joke to punctuate the pertinence of the airport scenario as an exemplary instance of contemporary "paralegal bio-politics in which administrative measures gradually replace the rule of law" and as a "state of emergency" prevailing over everyday American life during an unending war on terror (Zizek 2002a). Although Foucault's writings on governmentality ostensibly address liberal rationalities of rule (which are extended by Rose and Dean to consider neoliberalism and neoliberalist hegemony), I will focus my review of these books on their contribution to the history of our post-9/11 present.
The abstract paragraph following this is at: https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/new_centennial_review/v003/3.2rubenstein.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 1:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Deleuze comes up with an alternative in Anti-Oedipus; Difference and Repetition; A Thousand Plateaus. Zizek always in everything. Foucault's prose is so elegant he has been criticized for it. Baudrillard says Foucault's prose ins spiraling power; your prose must be even more so than what you are writing about (Nietzsche). Nietzsche's is aphoristic and musical and slides into your mind bypassing your defenses and rationalizations.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To seymour:
Just to note, I enjoyed your comments (I assume yours) over there on "camp."
You caused me to realize that I often use that style, if it is truly a style, over content. Content is challenging in its nature, as you all are discussing, leading to opposition discourse, confirmation bias, et al. One thing always leads to another; one thing cannot be said without perception, perspective, misinterpretation, challenge, and most of all - bias, which leads the discourse. Camp, on the other hand, is both a scapegoat and conduit: a scapegoat in its "artifice, irony and imagination;" a conduit to discourse of "theatrics, stylization and playfulness." It is a deliberate and monitored form of discourse, a poetry of sorts that is purely cognizant and emotional, not intellectual --- changing 'course,' not discourse.
(Movies and Film are not my forte, tho I do like them, so I am not in a position to critique most, and do not generally follow those blogs. I was just particularly impressed with your view in that one review.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 1:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks. I already answered and put 2 hot links so it went into moderation purgatory from which it will never emerge because this blog isn't being moderated anymore.
Reading Eclipse through Sontag's "camp": http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2011/10/eclipse-review-seeing-eclipse-through.html I will have to reply again to give you the viewing through Foucault.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 2:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's the Eclipse viewing through Foucault: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2011/10/eclipse-review-seeing-eclipse-through.html
Post modern thinking allows me to read so many possibilities in a text - movie - that I just love it. The Rashomon Effect! LOL!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 2:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It repeated the camp one so here is Eclipse through Foucault: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2011/10/eclipse-review-seeing-eclipse-through.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 2:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry I don't know what's going wrong on these links. I'll try one more time for Eclipse through Foucault: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2011/10/review-viewing-eclipse-through.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 2:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
m8 ur blag lay out is so fukd
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 3:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To Seymour:
Ooops! Sorry for originally thinking the review was yours instead of theirs!
I enjoyed both, but Foucault was really out there - "cuts" instead of knowledge - I'm pretty sure I follow his point. It's just that 'literally' (there I go with my Camp again:) a cut would mean to remove or sever, and that's not what is actually happening. But, it's still a perspective that has relevance.
Thanx !
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 4:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Seymourblogger
You were right in calling attention to my misplaced comparison of Alone and Deleuze - it got nothing to do with the issue though.
And I'll admit the question you were asked about utility of reading deleuze is...let's leave it with saying you'd be quite impressive if you were able to answer with clarity.
I'm glad thinking individuals are concerned over and discuss how power relations affect our language. I'm sure those discussions serve as a liberating force to many.
It's interesting how bias, as Chloe mention, enter many discourses. Within science, the subject which trigger most noise is biology. Obviously because - conscious or not - its perceived link to religion. Topics like say physics does not trigger those power struggles.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 2, 2013 11:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
CUTS are irruptions in perceived continuity, indicating what was before and what was after which are not necessarily linked at all. Example: 9-11 was a CUT in the US. It was an Event Phantasm that has irrupted for all foreseeable futures. Everything is different now from what it was before. There is information and there is knowing. The knowledge and cutting comes from Nietzsche who says we are busy in our lives bringing "honey" back to the hive every day, storing it away and that is where our treasure is, our heart.
To delve into this you read The Archeology of Knowledge by Foucault. It changes the Discourse of the human sciences.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 12:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
To Seymour:
Thank you for explaining CUTS. You remind me of the usage in the Film industry when the say, "Cut!"
Yes, I can understand how a CUT could/would apply to an irruption such that what was before will not be anything the same, after. I can also comprehend a difference between information and knowing.. one involves grasping and the other is already learned or part of our un/consciousness.
Why I queried Foucault's usage was that I interpreted him to be putting CUT into the context of ancestry stating it wasn't knowledge. We can 'know' the DNA of both lineages, therefore a new product isn't a CUT of either one, but a continuance of both. What am I missing in Foucault's logic ?
Thank you for the Literary source.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 12:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are missing Foucault's complete CUT with the Dominating Discourse of continuity, origin, utopia, horizon. progressive history, power as an object rather than a relation. Foucault's work is all about power, power which is in a relation with knowledge. it is always the power/knowledge Grid. Power cannot exist separately as it is always in a relation with knowledge as they feed, enhance, etc each other and each is necessary to the other for its existence. (Ayn Rand fictionalizes this in Atlas Shrugged. When knowledge is withdrawn from the world, the power goes out.)You cannot hold power, give it to someone, take it away, trade it, etc. It is a relation that seeps through the interstices of the grid from below. The book Power/Knowledge is a reader that has a number of essays and excerpts by Foucault on this relation. This comes out of his work on genealogy, and learning to think this way changes everything for you. IMO Thucydides was the first one to observe and write about genealogy in the Peloponnesian War.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 1:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"The book Power/Knowledge is a reader that has a number of essays and excerpts by Foucault on this relation. This comes out of his work on genealogy, and learning to think this way changes everything for you." ...
It would be different than my current outlook.
Personally, I see power within as an object of essence/energy. Energy is knowledge, be it Einstein or QM, so I see abstract relativity to Foucault's suggestion.
I've never read him. I might check into his work.
Many of your other comments makes sense to me, e.g.: "if knowledge is withdrawn, the power goes out." Yet, where I would disagree with him is ancestry in that knowledge isn't necessarily CUT. ...Epigenetics/epi-marks. I can't prove anything; I can speculate in my own mind, tho. :)
I'm not familiar with Thucydides, either. I'm sorry I'm unable to discuss those works with you.
I have read a little Nietzsche. Some of his views I find interesting, and some I disagree with. He's a little too anarchist/free-minded for me, unless I misinterpreted him.
Thank you for the info/discussion. I'll have to say "Good night."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 10:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
A good example of the power/knowledge relationship would be the geocentric world view that was held for a long time- that the earth was the center of the universe. Essentially Foucault was trying to point out the limitations of a system of knowledge, that they are inherently biased and controlled by the power structure. As things become more and more technical (astronomy, neuroscience) you have to get the truth interpreted from someone else, so already you are vulnerable to control. Iraq was based on a lie that was manufactured for public consumption. The government had the information (conveniently top secret of course, so no one could actually see the evidence). So the private citizen has to have faith that the "black box" we call gov't is doing the right thing. Any knowledge about Iraq comes to you packaged by the administration. Of course now we can look outside for other sources, which is why the Internet/social media is such a game-changer. The gov't is trying to figure out how to control it b/c it circumvents the traditional avenues for information dissemination/control.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 2:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
May I please keep your explanation as it is so perfect and concise. Thank you for rescuing me in here. I think you would like my blog post on Iraq and Thucydides, who, IMO, was the first genealogical thinker. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/03/lincoln-and-zero-dark-thirty-cracking.html?zx=16c56efa6770c2e7
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 2:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
We knowers are unknown to ourselves, and for a good reason: how can we ever hope to find what we have never looked for? There is a sound adage which runs:"Where a man's treasure lies, there lies his heart." Our treasure lies in the beehives of our knowledge. We are perpetually on our way thither, being by nature winged insects and honey gatherers of the mind. The only thing that lies close to our heart is the desire to bring something home to the hive. (preface The Genealogy of Morals - Nietzsche)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 3:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Of course you can! Thanks for the nice words. I think Foucault can be difficult for people because he is part of that French POMO era, and people of that era tended to use a language that was more "flourishing" if that makes sense. Henry Miller appropriated that French style and his novels would intersperse poetic, abstract/disconnected diatribes with clear, concise, absolute gems of literature. So it's difficult sometimes to convey it to others in a simple sentence or two. But that's the POMO form, sort of attacking ideas and language from different angles, without a beginning or end. That's also the post-modern crisis, like you said things change, and yet Notes from the Underground is as understandable now the same as it was 100 yrs ago. Same with Thucydides: we are starting in the middle, where we have been stuck for some time. From Miller:
Until he man has become fully human, until he learns to conduct himself as a member of the earth, he will continue to create gods who will destroy him. The tragedy of Greece lies not in the destruction of a great culture but in the abortion of a great vision.
On that note, I think your blog post connecting Athens with Iraq/Zero Dark Thirty is quite good. I'm going to look through it again but I think it's very powerful.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2013 5:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The tragedy of Greece lies not in the destruction of a great culture but in the abortion of a great vision.
This quote of yours from Miller connects with Zizek. He writes that there are "signs from the future" that we must give space to, allow them to grow. That fascism was not so much a political system that triumphed but a liberal democratic system that failed to grow. And it is important to recognize these signs from the future and to help them along so they will flourish.
Thanks about the blog post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 4, 2013 11:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me. I have Bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles.Keep up the good work!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 4, 2013 12:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
think maybe he or she meant alone?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 5, 2013 7:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This has been known since Socrates. (At least.)
Power/knowledge is old as a shamanism is, or the oldest human tribe. It is not postmodern anything. Maybe just postmodern reinventing the wheel.
Seymour: If all you get from Foucoult is this, it is worth re-reading him endlessly ad nauseum. (Better than to start interpreting him.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 5, 2013 10:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well since it's been known since Socrates, I guess Foucault, Nietzche, Heidegger et all just shouldn't have bothered eh? After all, it's all been said before! Foucault's ideas (with Nietzsche as a backdrop) were much more nuanced than that...he was challenging the way we (in a post-modern society) look at history/institutions/morality, picking up where Nietzsche left off. Which is probably why seymour is frustrated: if you just refer to Foucault, you are not explaining anything. If you try to explain something about Foucault in a simple way, it's "oh, that's all Foucault was saying? Who didn't know that already?"
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 5, 2013 12:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Foucault was unearthing the power/knowledge/capital/normality relation as it has existed since around 300 years ago. Just the last 300 years in Europe and the Western World. Genealogy goes back to at least our first historical text of Thucydides way before Nietzsche. It is certain Nietzsche would have read Thucydides in the original but maybe not Foucault who said his Latin was rusty, so perhaps his Greek was also.
Your comment is one of the "origin," searching for when an idea emerged originally. When one goes back and back looking for the origin, the depths get murkier and murkier until all traces disappear into the ancient world. The same with the horizons of progressive history which continue to recede before us as we approach them, like mirages, which is why Foucault turns to genealogy which is not chronological, as cuts, that reveal hidden meanings. My friend from Bosnia is here and was talking this moring about a village 30 K from her town which is essentially midieval, the women covered head to toe in black robes, while Sarajevo is secular, This sort of fundamentalism does not belong to the history of the past and is pronouncing before your eyes that it is chronological with the present. Foucault has just presented genealogy in such detail from the archives that it is now over riding the idea of history as being continuous, progressive, fixable, etc. We can no longer believe in a future that the capitalistic, technologically sophisticated part of the world can take the rest of the world with it in its relentless progression towards the future. Actually your other reply was much better.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 5, 2013 12:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So.
If power moves, then what field were women pushed _out of_?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 5, 2013 1:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That example reminds me of Baudrillard, and the idea of civilization as a living specimen, to be constantly modeled and studied. One example was the Native American Reservations. "Scientists" will use this as some sort of authentic representation/model of Native American culture. But the reservation wouldn't exist if the actual Native American civilization still thrived, and the so reservation itself becomes an act of destruction...destruction of historical reality through preservation/restoration.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 5, 2013 5:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(If there is another Anon in this thread then we are not the same person)
First, it´s not "oh, that's all Foucault was saying? Who didn't know that already?" it is actually: "goddamn, it is not what Foucoult is saying. you are reducing him into all the rest of humanity." Cause power/knoweledge is relation every kid is aware of and lives accordingly. It is nice you realize that through Foucoult (you could through others as well, or just on your own). You know that old saying "everything has been said already, but since no one listened..." -- it is not fully true...everytime you "re-say" something you take it a bit further... So no, I do not think that since everything has been said already in ancient Greece or whatever, we can just sit and relax. We just somehow stopped taking it further. (I do not mean Foucoult, I mean Seymour.) Well, even reading the oldest can lead to taking something newer further. So even Hegel is not "dead" in that respect. You do not have to read latin texts to "build" upon them. The majority of latin texts are already woven in our knowledge. And secondly, I do not care about "origin" of the idea. Actually I don´t give a fuck who was first with anything. Power/knowledge is not known since Socrates in "Philosophy" or among scholars -- it is lived reality by people. And yes, they are aware of it. They make decisions based on awareness of this. And tehy find it pretty normal and natural and desirable. Why do you think everyone "wowed" when Gutenberg appeared and few got really scared? The same with Internet, Wikileaks...etc. Interestingly, those few have found loopholes... So now you get crumbs - "knowledge" - a lot more than ever before...still very little power. Or not? Do we also have power we never dreamed of? Or do those few still find some loopholes? What power would you actually like to have? Do you think you still have no resources to figure anything out somehow? to check out something? To make decision? What is missing? What information is left out for you to know? Do you know what you want? What you need? What to ask for? Or someone else should know? We got Wikileaks and what we did with it? In my country, a year ago a document was leaked -- audio material from spying "project" -- all politicians caught in corruption. Pure, clear evidence. The whole country knows about it. The whole country has read a transcript. A year later, no one in court, no one in jail, no one pays anything, no one resigned. Few months later after leak, my country elected the worst of them. He got majority of votes, now rulling the country.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 6, 2013 1:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I like that part of Baudrillard too. He just has so many fragments that I forget so much so I like to be reminded of them.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 8, 2013 3:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You have good points, but I disagree with your views on feminism and women and power.
I agree that the fact of making things into a gender issue which really have absolutely nothing to do with gender is off kilter, and actually *makes* something sexist, and something it really-- isn't. And that the media often does it too often, and it makes no sense. And that people do it too often, and it makes no sense.
Rather than the media creating feminism, why don't we say that the media creates sexism? It actually sort of creates a facade of gender differences which are henceforth expressed as true by each 'category'- all those stupid makeup articles, everything directed "for men" "for women", and the intelligence, motivations, etc of each? But... where are these even coming from?
But I hear a lot of "I think women are inherently dumb" coming across. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your language.
Categorizing things with a great amount of variance = no true categorization, as your dependent variable is not affected by the independent variable. There really isn't a difference between a guy and girl, it is true that for some reasons, beliefs are what make people who they are for perfectly arbitrary categorizations. I agree with Dovahkiin that society is not necessarily trusting women and minorities with power- which you can kind of see if the media is still making a big fuss about women doing things. The very fact of turning something into a gender/race/category issue (unless it actually is) devalues one category no matter what happens. Which is silly. The correlation is interesting, your theories on causation seem a bit off. Or could it be that people give more respect to the careers men are in (associating it with a positive male stereotype), and will associate less positive/negative [minority/female/other category] stereotypes with careers minorities + women are in? It could all be this stereotyping business that influences 'respect'.
But what is the system? People, just people. What shapes people's beliefs? Other people, media. Media run by other people with beliefs about what other people like, shaped by other people and more about them.
Feminism is a movement of anti-categorization. But like with most movements, there are people who support it who argue off-kilter arguments, and most who...don't. The interesting thing is that people pay more attention to the off-kilter arguments than the non.
The point on the rape is powerful, I concur. It's not even just women, as a category, but for any.
Rape is rape- and regardless of gender, age, or any freaking kind of stupid categorization, it is rape, it is horrible. Victims are not just female. It is not a hypermasculine rape culture, it is a smatterings of a rape culture where there shouldn't be. And what the fuck is wrong with our culture that people stand by and watch, that rape victims are 'asking for it', that a person with PTSD and seizures is asked to seizure and relive their traumatic experience of being raped in an effort to 'prove you have this condition', that there isn't support, that abusive/unequal power dynamics relationships are shown in the media as 'healthy'?
On the other hand, the fact that people notice something's wrong is promising.
The fact that we still haven't gotten over the mob-psychology- "being in a group, so taking on the group's morals", "being in a group, so holding less responsibility for what the group does" which results in terrible things happening is also chilling, though, hopefully, maybe in 2013, we have. ...no, I guess not.
As said, I don't like the way you seem to follow stereotypes to a certain extent, but you have good points.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 9, 2013 7:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your thinking is terribly confused so your reply is confusing. You are replying in the Dominating Discourse and nothing can be gotten from it. It is a dinosaur way of thinking, a flat earth type of thinking. It got us into this so it won't get us out of it. Gender is socially constructed. Sex is biological. Sexuality, well, read Foucault's History of Sexuality, which is almost from a genealogical perception.Cause and effect is in the Order of Production. We are in an Event driven world where Events come from nowhere, cannot be anticipated by those affected, just out of the blue.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 10, 2013 4:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We each can use our own intuitions and intelligence in determining the 'voice' of an author.Just remember, if this person(s) is/are actually psychiatrists - then 'personality' is their specialty, and s/he or 'they' would be quite capable of portraying either gender.
Come on, guys. Alone is Tiresias.
Tiresias is presented as a complexly liminal figure, with a foot in each of many oppositions, mediating between the gods and mankind, male and female, blind and seeing, present and future, and this world and the Underworld.
liminal
Adjective
* Of or relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process.
* Occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold.
Tiresias makes a dramatic appearance in the Odyssey, book XI, in which Odysseus calls up the spirits of the dead (the nekyia). "So sentient is Tiresias, even in death," observes Marina Warner "that he comes up to Odysseus and recognizes him and calls him by name before he has drunk the black blood of the sacrifice; even Odysseus' own mother cannot accomplish this, but must drink deep before her ghost can see her son for himself."
The ancient Greeks were all over mothers. They knew.
In Greek literature, Tiresias's pronouncements are always given in short maxims which are often cryptic (gnomic), but never wrong...it is Tiresias who tells Amphytrion of Zeus and Alcmena and warns the mother of Narcissus that the boy will thrive as long as he never knows himself. This is his emblematic role in tragedy. Like most oracles, he is generally extremely reluctant to offer the whole of what he sees in his visions.
Yeah, that's Alone.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
April 10, 2013 5:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
On gender ambiguity see Judith Butler.
Mark Tansey's paintings are exploring post modern philosophy and have made a CUT in the Discourse of art history since I last studied it. In his Mont St. Victoire painting the male painters are reflected in water where they are reflected back to themselves as women. Tansey in his marvelously intelligent article on painting, in commenting on the "mirror"(Lacan) as revealing the concealed, is saying in his painting of one of Cezanne's favorite subjects, that gender ambiguity is the norm, only now it is becoming more accepted to see it and accept and talk about it. Look at all his paintings, which are not sharp and clear, really forcing those of us who want to really see them, to go see the originals. I suspect that is Tansey's intent. Not copies or simulacra, but seeing the original. Do see the one of the cow looking at the painting of a cow in the painting.
Here's a great new article on Shirley Temple that you will love from The New Yorker: http: //www(dot)newyorker(dot)com/online/blogs/books/2013/04/strange-loot-shirley-temples-autobiography-child-star.html Sorry I can't do 2 hotlinks as the comment will go into moderation and alone isn't moderating anymore so they are in limbo waiting for her/him.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 11, 2013 1:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
perhaps this is a terribly idealistic and unrealistic thing to say that maybe feminism could be defined as women doing whatever the heck they want ( within the limits of safe, consensual, doesn't harm others, of course) and not caring what other people's judgements of them are? Your viewpoint is terribly logical and also very cynical ( and perhaps correct) on the nature of the human race but I feel as if the focus should be more on the failures of humanity in general, and not just women. So why not makeup? I've been brainwashed enough to make me feel better when I wear it. And what is the problem with that?
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
April 11, 2013 3:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is nothing wrong with it. When women first wore make up it was in the spirit of enhancement, play, seduction, creativity etc. Make up has now entered the Order of Production. To look "normal" in terms of a career successful woman, a woman has to wear a certain amount of make up, wear it in a certain way, wear certain colors, etc. She can no longer play with it, it is a daily necessity for her if she has a certain kind of job. I was in St. Louis the other day and in Mid-Rivers Mall in an upscale store the retail saleswoman in the cosmetic department had very pale skin (make up) and dark red colored hair that was so shiny it looked hard, like polyester hair and of course her facial make up was colored to match. When she was standing still my friend thought she was an inanimate model until she moved. That was exactly how she looked, like those store window models, their hair, their make up. I could see that that's how a retail sales person in that department needed to look. A natural face could not be hired to sell make up there and yet there was a time not so long ago when they could easily have done so.
When I first saw her I complimented her on her hair and then asked if it was real. My friends said you should have seen her face when you said that (she was turned away from me)as she was soothed by my compliment and jarred by my asking if her hair were real. Honestly it did not look real. It really didn't. I thought it was a wig made from synthetic hair. She was a young woman moving in the direction of cloning herself. Perhaps she will get silicone breasts, plumped lips, other plastic surgeries, work out, do yoga, all to get a certain kind of body and face. That takes a lot of time and a lot of money. You become a huge consumer in the marketplace of beauty not to mention the amount of time required for this high maintenance. That is what is wrong with it. You see these models and you desire to look bettEr and better, then as you age, you fight off DEATH. That is what it is about.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 11, 2013 8:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I must say this is one of the most original political pieces I've read on the net.
Why don't they rise up, indeed.
That being said; is it really necessary to refer to so much specific American popular culture? Who really has time to watch 'Girls' or know or care who Kanye West is...
I do realise you have to understand the iconography of a culture to understand it; but really. Our popular iconography is so depressing as to inspire flight above quest for understanding. Perhaps you are braver than me.
I've always thought - here's the old fashioned Marxist in me - that feminism was only ever going to get as far as capitalism would let it. ie; oh so you women want to offer your labour (go ahead, increase labour supply so much the better to screw down wages) oh so you women want to have sex when you want to. Ok then; but in order to do that we will have to proscribe a certain set of standards (expensive standards) of dress, makeup etc that you will have to adhere to. Oh so you women want to feel like you are independent of men and are free of their demands? Well these extra things we need to sell you are your choice because not only do they make you feel better they help you with your career! Why wouldn't you choose to feel better and be successful? The values of capitalism conflict with the values of feminism; and where capitalism is advantaged by the aspirations of feminism it will allow them and only them and package that as the entirety of feminism. But only if its advantaged. But decide to not buy into it, well; woe betide you. Of course the values of capitalism are internalised too. Are reproduced too. In ways that are often too subtle to readily recognise.
Branding was something they used to do to slaves yes?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 11, 2013 8:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I must say this is one of the most original political pieces I've read on the net.
Why don't they rise up, indeed.
That being said; is it really necessary to refer to so much specific American popular culture? Who really has time to watch 'Girls' or know or care who Kanye West is...
I do realise you have to understand the iconography of a culture to understand it; but really. Our popular iconography is so depressing as to inspire flight above quest for understanding. Perhaps you are braver than me.
I've always thought - here's the old fashioned Marxist in me - that feminism was only ever going to get as far as capitalism would let it. ie; oh so you women want to offer your labour (go ahead, increase labour supply so much the better to screw down wages) oh so you women want to have sex when you want to. Ok then; but in order to do that we will have to proscribe a certain set of standards (expensive standards) of dress, makeup etc that you will have to adhere to. Oh so you women want to feel like you are independent of men and are free of their demands? Well these extra things we need to sell you are your choice because not only do they make you feel better they help you with your career! Why wouldn't you choose to feel better and be successful? The values of capitalism conflict with the values of feminism; and where capitalism is advantaged by the aspirations of feminism it will allow them and only them and package that as the entirety of feminism. But only if its advantaged. But decide to not buy into it, well; woe betide you. Of course the values of capitalism are internalised too. Are reproduced too. In ways that are often too subtle to readily recognise.
Branding was something they used to do to slaves yes?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 11, 2013 9:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not sure which it is. My guess is that powerful people tend to skew the system to keep people like them in power. In other words, the more you LOOK and ACT and more importantly THINK like the power, the less you have to fight the system to get into power. And there is a hierarchy to the Western Matrix.
My best guess is:
Rich Anglo Saxon Protestants
Rich Western European Protestants
Rich White Catholics
Rich Asian Secularists
Rich White Women
Rich White Gays
Rich Black Males
Rich Black Females
--------------
Middle Class White Males
Middle Class White Females
Middle Class Gay
Middle Class Minority
-------------
Poor People
I suppose we could quibble about who goes where specifically, but the point is that the elitist superstructure is mostly aimed at self preservation, and in grooming the next generation of elites to guide society to what they want it to be. TLP says women (among others) seek symbolic power after the real power is removed. My suggestion is the reverse of that -- that nonelites don't have the possibility of getting into those power slots. Now at first it was fairly overt, but a slave who wears a chain figures out rather quickly that he's a slave. A serf kept down overtly knows hes shut out. They fight that. But if you can make it look like the slave is only a slave because he didn't choose the right career, or the serf is a house servant and thus is powerful (because they're in the master's house for crying out loud), they not only don't fight, but they'll work hard to do masters bidding because the promise is that they'll give you real power. It's most overt in business -- make bossman rich, he'll promote you and you get more power. It's the psychological trick that gets you to do things that you wouldn't do with a promise that may or may not be there.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 11, 2013 1:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Lovely comment Clare. This site has had its comments morphed from psychological interpretation to state strategies. A blessing.
Yes and what you are describing is Foucault's power/knowledge Grid. IN this case the power/knowledge/normal/capital grid. This is where all power exerts itself in the interstices of the grid, seeping up from below and not enforced by a Big Other from the top of the pyramid. As long as "power" as a concept has not been subjected to the genealogy that Foucault crushes it with, a person's Discourse remains unenlightened and full of psychological interpretations. Your comment reveals the strategy behind all this, what Marcuse calls Pac-Man that devours all opposing views. In DeLillo's Cosmopolis (200 pages read it)Vija Kinski says, "There is no outside," a direct quote from Foucault.
So you are shifting your Discourse to post modern thinking instead of the you/other of the dialectical Dominating Discourse. I am relieved you are reading here. I could use some help LOL!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 12, 2013 3:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am a Black woman and I hardly wear makeup. To me, this article is full of shit just like the person who wrote it.
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
April 12, 2013 3:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's the kind of article that would be great in a zine like Harper's or Vogue. A little bitter considering their ads and promotions. Just enough sour to balance the sweet. "There is no outside." - Michel Foucault
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 12, 2013 4:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am a Black woman and I hardly wear makeup. To me, this article is full of shit just like the person who wrote it.
This blog is perfect for you. Or you are perfect for it. Whatever. Anyway, you have a lot to catch up on, but you can start here:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/01/can_narcissism_be_cured.html
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 12, 2013 6:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why would you send her to a post that is about narcissism when it really isn't about narcissism. There's a critical comment there in the thread that critiques it very well. Narcissism is understood by the "narcissistic defense" and how it is analyzed. It takes quite a long time to do it. The narcissist MUST protect himself from the attacks on his ego by his parents, caretakers etc. The narcissist develops the narcissistic defense, the WALL to keep the attacks of others out. The narcissist's ego has not been allowed to express itself and grow. The narcissist's choices have not been respected from early infancy on. Children are confined and controlled and parents do what they "think" is best for them and when that gets too difficult they abdicate. It is a complex psychological understanding that alone does not display. Slater's The Pursuit of Loneliness will explain it far better if you really want to know. Or Christopher Lasch.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 4:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I personally hate when society dictates us what to do and how to live. I think that there is no single answer about the make up. If it makes a woman feel comfortable and confident, so let her put on make up before leaving a house. I am not always feel like putting on a make up though my skin is not perfect, I just don't care what others think about it.
You little Toddlers all need to stop lying. You don't have a right to deceive and you definitely don't have a right to lie to children.
Wipe the filthy lies off your face and wipe the filthy depravity out of your mind. Stop lying. All misery is sourced from whores that lie to their children.
I asked a friend today how much he'd need to like sex before he threw away his future to compete with other men to impress girls. He said if sex was 5x better he'd probably think about it.
For me, it'd be about 10x before I'd even consider it. The market can be used to determine Demand.
You filthy whores need to stop your filthy lying now. You just don't care huh? You need a bullwhipping to wipe your "not caring" off your lying face? Let's go to a showdown of truth, and see who squeals like little bitches when they're forced to give up their various crutches of malice.
"If you have nothing HONEST to say, then don't say anything at all." - mothers, if they weren't all filthy whores.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 4:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
feminism could be defined as women doing whatever the heck they want ( within the limits of safe, consensual, doesn't harm others, of course) and not caring what other people's judgements of them are?So why not makeup? I've been brainwashed enough to make me feel better when I wear it. And what is the problem with that?
*grits teeth*
deceit
* The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth.
* A dishonest act or statement.
You feel better because you're a liar. You're an enemy of Humanity. Stop your filthy lying. Wipe your filthy deceit off your face.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 9:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
She was a young woman moving in the direction of cloning herself. Perhaps she will get silicone breasts, plumped lips, other plastic surgeries, work out, do yoga, all to get a certain kind of body and face. That takes a lot of time and a lot of money. You become a huge consumer in the marketplace of beauty not to mention the amount of time required for this high maintenance. That is what is wrong with it. You see these models and you desire to look bettEr and better, then as you age, you fight off DEATH. That is what it is about.
The desire to look better and better reveals women's values. Their priorities reveal what is most important to them. Their willingness to resort to non-default, antisocial behaviour reveals their motives.
Everything else is just noise. Listen to what they do. Listen to their actions speak truth.
The filthy whores. The stupid Toddlers ruined the lives of 100 billion people and destroyed the world because they are little sex-obsessed Toddlers who love sex just that much. All the lies are sourced from mothers. All the deceit comes from whores.
Only leeches have motive to lie.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 4:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually they are not sex obsessed as now there is sex everywhere but in sex. It is porno sex they are obsessed with. Sex that is more than sex, worse than sex, hypersex, pornography, simulated sex, Virtual Reality sex.
Why? Because there is no sex since it is everywhere it is invisible, like the evil in the jungle as Herzog says. Everywhere so it is invisible. Porno sex is in the Order of Production. Seduction is in the Symbolic Order. It is seduction only that can free us BECAUSE seduction cannot be produced. Push up bras with cleavage is produced seduction and it doesn't work. Plumped lips are produced seduction and it doesn't work. Tummy tucks are produced seduction and it doesn't work and sometimes kills you. Make up has entered the Order of Production. It used to be play, in the Symbolic Order of seduction. If people cannot observe the two orders and how Production keeps stealing from the Symbolic Order in homeopathic doses, they cannot understand the world they are living in. Too bad. Their loss.
On my Makenzie Foy Lolita post someone commented with a link to a recent New Yorker article on Shirley Temple's autobiography. It is a whomp on the head.Temple was a little autistic (sort of) genius who learned how to be boring. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/04/strange-loot-shirley-temples-autobiography-child-star.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 5:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
" Everywhere so it is invisible " ...
Just jumping in for a moment to say I agree with that statement. Reminds me of a poem I wrote in the past suggesting there was a time when "love was real." Love is now exploited consumerism, unrealistic fantasy and seduction to the point that 'real' has become "invisible."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 5:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. You would like Baudrillard's little book The Perfect Crime as he writes about reality being stolen from us in homeopathic doses. Simulated Reality increases and we are running towards it to embrace it as fast as we can. When SR is total we will be in Virtual Reality. Have you ever gamed or known a gamer? It is Borges little story about the Map and the Territory. The territory keeps disappearing as the map covers more and more of it until there is nothing but the map. The territory is invisible.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 5:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, I'm not a Gamer, and I can see how that plays into this reality; they create fiction and truth to be seen as one and the same. Ads/Consumerism do the same...mind manipulation once they have a grasp of one's emotions.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 6:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is scary and so fantastic you wonder if it's true. But you can't dismiss it or forget it. http://evilanon.blogspot.com/2013/04/update-one-lead-among-others-in.html?showComment=1365890587104#c5191720034050405280 What do you think?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 6:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Once we are in Virtual Reality there is no escape and that is our danger. Deleuze suggests a way out, that of being more real than real. Have you seen Mark Tansey's paintings on this thinking?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 6:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So my sister and I joined the legions of Shirley mimics—like Andy Warhol, who became obsessed with her after seeing “Poor Little Rich Girl” and (according to his biographer Victor Bokris) aped her mannerisms “for the rest of his life…folding his hands in prayer and placing them next to his cheek, or twisting them together and holding them out to the right just below his waist.” This remains Temple’s peculiar feat: she makes children want to be adorable and sickly sweet and dull, to flatten their emotions out. It’s hard to imagine any subsequent child star surviving an assassination attempt and thinking simply, “The tale seemed understandable to me.” (In 1981, Jodie Foster would respond to the Hinckley incident by sinking into depression, demanding to read all her hate mail, and ironically hanging an enormous photo of Reagan getting shot in her kitchen.) “Child Star” charts Shirley Temple’s triumph over experiences that almost seem to have been conspiring to make her interesting—but the book preserves them so perfectly, and offers such a trove of loot, that children will read it in a state of Ali Baba greed.
Looks to me like you were lucky and Shirley was damned. Who'd a thunk it. The entire article is wonderful: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/04/strange-loot-shirley-temples-autobiography-child-star.html Just making as sure as I can that you don't miss it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 7:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
WTF is wrong with you? I am not a narcissist! I just don't agree with this post, that is all!
That doesn't make me an narcissist. I am not vain nor do I look myself in the mirror often. You don't know shit about me!
Not wearing makeup doesn't make me ugly. You and MOST White women in America can't go without makeup because most of you guys don't look good without makeup or have natural beauty.
I actually have a natural sort of beauty and I don't need to be wearing makeup often because wearing too much makeup clogs up my pores. No, I don't think I am a supermodel but I try to look nice. I try to keep my skin clean all the time. Plus I don't need to wear all that makeup unlike you.
I only wear makeup on special occasions such as dances and that is it.
Piling on so much makeup doesn't equal beauty.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 7:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Pay no attention. A is just trying to sound intelligent. Ignore.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 7:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
On "Maddie" - I don't know what to think! It is scary..
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 8:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Of all the post modern philosophers writing the one who scares me is Virilio. He writes on Speed and Politics. To his dismay he found he was being carefully studied in all the war colleges. He goes on to say that the world is being taken over by gangsters and he is including corporate gangsters in this but also far more dangerous ones. I had to stop reading him but he resonates with Lovecraft who is never very far from my thinking and feeling. I guess that's why this link on Maddie wouldn't leave me. I do believe this happens. I do believe there are people out there exactly like this, doing these things. I think everytime a movie is made of evil it gives more borderline people ideas. I think if I can imagine something awful then someone is already doing it. I just feel Cthulhu stirring all the time. When Jonny told his story it seemed so fantastic it couldn't be true but I knew it was. I feel the same about this Maddie one. I still think Natalie Holloway who disappeared in Aruba was sold into sex slavery and spirited away on a boat. I think that Groot guy got money for her. I think he did it before too. I think he tried to do it after with those Asian girls he was videotaped with in the room in Amsterdam. And God knows what he had planned for the woman he killed that got him caught. This is the world my paranoid mother used to imagine. I used to shrug my shoulders at her. Now I think she was just being clairvoyant. I am so glad I do not have children.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 8:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
" I think everytime a movie is made of evil it gives more borderline people ideas. " ...
So do I !! I've said that myself.
On Natalie Holloway, selling her instead of killing her makes sense to me. Foreign trips get planned for high school and college students all of the time; it seems like incidents like that would happen more than they do, or that we hear about. Hard to imagine what parents must go through, never knowing what happened, wondering what kind of brutality might be involved. The Groot guy is just creepy to even think about.
Gotta go. Have a good night, Seymour!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 13, 2013 8:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Genet said that writers must be responsible for what they write. Burroughs said it too not long after Genet. They both went to the Chicago to the Dem convention in 68 because they felt it was their responsibility to be there. Burroughs had remarked about the bicycle bomb outside of a cafe in Greene's Quiet American novel and the same thing happened afterwards at a mid east cafe Burroughs had gone to regularly while he had been there. When he heard it reported he knew what had happened before the TV announcer had even finished the sentence because it was exactly the same as in Green's novel.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 1:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Narcissism isn't just about how often you look in the mirror. It's about how you view yourself in relation to the world, to others. But now we understand: YOU don't need to wear makeup because YOU are naturally beautiful and most white women are not. Disagreeing with the post because it doesn't apply to your experience is fine. Calling the author full of shit because he is describing a wider cultural phenomenon (somewhere between 80%-90% of women in this country wear makeup) that might not necessarily apply to YOU is narcissistic. But we get it, YOU don't wear makeup.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 2:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
there's some truth in your criticism here, but I'd argue that TLP is more interested in narcissism of a different type than Slater or Lasch. I'm thinking of his post 'Narcissism is not grandiosity' -- and there have been other mentions of this distinction in other posts, too.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 3:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
SeymourBlogger: Push up bras with cleavage is produced seduction and it doesn't work. Plumped lips are produced seduction and it doesn't work. Tummy tucks are produced seduction and it doesn't work and sometimes kills you. Make up has entered the Order of Production.
SB, you're doing a King Oedipus here. You're blinded to truth.
Do you see men stuffing their underwear with tissues or socks, wearing push up jocks? Do you see men spending 2-3 hours a day making themselves deceptively - competitively - more attractive to the opposite sex? Do you see men getting collagen injections, Botox, agonising their way through diets, throwing their entire lives away obsessing over how to deceptively create illusory beauty for the purpose of appealing to the opposite sex?
We would, you know. If we enjoyed sex 10x as much.
Who has the motive to lie? All the lies come from mothers and priests; leeches-in-crime.
How many choirboys' screams were ignored for 1500 years of sociopathic leaching? It's not NICE to accuse the Middlemen of Blasphemy and Heresy (called by an omnipotent and omniscient God to do what God couldn't do, on account of all that omnipotence and omniscience?) of molesting you with the erect love of Christ. It's not a NICE thing to say at all.
"If you have nothing NICE to say, then don't say anything at all." - Young-Girl Toddler mothers (filthy deceit-ridden whores)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 3:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually men are doing those things. They are getting electrolysis to dehair themselves. Too much on their chests, legs, back etc so it has to come off permanently as shaving is not acceptable. They are also getting eye lifts and face lifts. I am sure tummy tucks are included. Women are getting vaginal plastic surgery to get themselves "cleaned" up, to not have droopy labia etc. They also are waxed clean for oral sex because men do not want hair in their teeth. Men get hair transplants. I am sure I have missed some other things men do but this will suffice eh. Oh, they also perfume themselves now too. Men's perfumes are big sellers. Dior etc.
Actually I wanted you to go to the link above about Maddie the little girl who was kidnapped in Portugal from her bedroom while her parents were socializing outside at the cafe beside the motel while she was sleeping supposedly. The world is being taken over by thugs.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 4:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Chloe: Reminds me of a poem I wrote in the past suggesting there was a time when "love was real." Love is now exploited consumerism, unrealistic fantasy and seduction to the point that 'real' has become "invisible."
Oh stop, you're going to make me vomit.
A time when "love was real"? Really effective, you mean? When it was used for it's only purpose (exploitation, making slaves out of miserable and broken humans; men and children - but first you have to reduce them).
Tell me about the time when love had value. Oh, you can't do that, can you? Because it's never had value; it's the most vile mental illness imaginable and whores infect their little children with this horrific misery-guaranteeing emotion. It's the ultimate addictive poison. One hit, and you're fucked for life like Gatsby; chasing illusions, memories, shadows, lies.
Tell me about the time when children needed to be infected with love, as a constructive child-raising technique.
Tell me about the time when love created independence rather than filthy, Self-less dependency.
You can't do any of these things because you're mired so deep in your sociopathic deceit and denial, you will likely just ignore this logic and continue on being...a corruption that, if you will not embrace or even engage truth, needs to be RIP. It's not humane to let you spew this sentimental poison at humans.
A time when "love was real". Tell me about the time love had value. Who gives a fuck about efficacy. Tell me what good has love ever done for the victim infected with it.
This is the value of love. This is what it's used for by lazy, sex-obsessed, sleazy Toddler whores. They swap it for value. All their Emotional Currency is exchanged for value.
They remunerate their child slaves with their expressed pleasure. But first they have to tear the child down, destroy the child's Self, force the child to be dependant on their emotional validation. Then, and only then, can they relieve pain that would have never existed (pain they had to create because they love sex and laziness just that much).
This girl above is stunning; and brilliant. She's a prostitute in Thailand's child sex industry; she's not a child anymore but she's seen it all and survived. Her little sister is getting a much easier initiation. She's expressing her love here for a woman that manipulated both her daughters into fighting her to be allowed to throw themselves into the deadly child prostitution underworld of Bangkok when they were 14 and 15, respectively. The way the mothers pull this trick off is a masterclass in exploitation.
If I was committed to forcing this girl to see the truth about her mother, she'd have me killed. She's a survivor which means she's a killer. Chloe, this is love, for real.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 4:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
TLP is premising his posts on the field of psychiatry. Narcissism is at the present spinning into so many Discourses that it is losing any semblance of its clinical definition. Its mythological definition is also not clear as there are far more resonances than there used to be. Take Mark Tansey's painting Mont St. Victoire where the male artists are nude bending over the water and their reflections are female. Narcissists are very difficult to work with clinically. Classical analysis cannot penetrate the narcissistic defense, the wall of narcissism. But in the last two decades it seems everyone can fit that definition, so it is becoming "normal" in this culture. What can you do then when that happens. One no longer considers it abnormal, or necessary to address it as a clinical category. If one does not feel it is necessary to seek therapy because they are no different from everyone else, then what? Pop therapy is not going to help anyway and therapy is moving more and more towards Brave New World and pills. Big Pharma has a strong lobby. People have to feel a need to seek help, a dissatisfaction and it is so very easy to blame the system for those feelings because it is true, their narcissism is being manufactured by the system. Most people here regard narcissism in its very surface manifestations when they criticize a comment. They really have no idea what they are talking about. Alone is addressing the entire culture for its narcissism, parents and children alike. We can extend that to the govt and then it is everywhere, so it becomes invisible. So yes the culture is sick, the culture is narcissistic and this is what Slater and Lasch are talking about. It is no longer a disease or a symptom that belongs to an individual that is fixable. Toynbee says in his History that civilizations in disintegration fail because of one variable, the loss of moral fibre in that culture, the absence of integrity rather than all the other variables we associate with the fall of empires as he eliminates each one in his 5 volumes. Or is it 6. I forget. They are beautifully written and wrap you in a world of rising and falling empires. china is in ascendancy now. We are descending and nothing can be done about it for we have passed the point of addressing the challenge thrown at us that we failed to meet and overcome in order to meet the next challenge. All the symptoms are visible in western civilization. Out of every major fall of a civilization rises a new world religion.So far anyway. I think that's where the focus is now.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 4:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Narcissism is not about grandiosity and I certainly don't mean to infect it with that spin. But it is in the conceptualization of it by the masses. And we see it here in a number of comments.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 4:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not gonna go there with you jonny.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 4:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually men are doing those things.
This is the Dominating Discourse, what you're doing now. Refusal to accept truth. Arguing with people who are motivated by denial rather than an interest in pursuing truth has been the horror of my entire life. Toddlers entrenched into their incorrect positions; they don't care about being right, they just care about obfuscation and blurring the discourse enough so that the status quo can prevail.
It's irrelevant that some men are doing those things; that's not the point. The point is that every woman does those things; because?
They just love sex that much.
This is why women are insane. You see that psychotic hypocrisy? That's why women get raped by the sons of mothers who raised them Right (instead of letting them be naturally Selfish and humane).
When men are throwing away their entire futures obsessing over their bodies whilst their minds rot, then you have a counter-argument. Women are obsessed with sex. Their actions reveal their values.
Actually I wanted you to go to the link above about Maddie...The world is being taken over by thugs.
I read a bit of it, it's too depressing. The world is being taken over by thugs, correct. You're 5000 years behind the 8-ball. Have you read Numbers ch. 31? This is power. Mothers imprinting children with hatred and envy and emotional degradation...like real love. They're then wielded like cannon fodder. Over the top for Queen, God and Country. Not a Self between a million of them.
Love was introduced to the world and the species has been at War with itself for 5000 years.
Thugs. Yes. For 5000 years, thugs have risen to the top of power pyramids. Thugs who were not born that way; they were raised to be thugs by psychotic Toddler whores who raised them Right (to be needy, Self-less, robotic slaves driven by primal desires manufactured by hoarding).
All the rapes are the product of mothers' lying to sons about women and sex. Mothers' lies did this to Maddie; and they destroyed the lives of 100 billion other humans as well.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 5:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am a Black woman and I hardly wear makeup. To me, this article is full of shit just like the person who wrote it.
Wow. This is a breeder of children.
The State just got an erection. Religion just shivered with delight.
She just feels it's important that the world knows that she disapproves of Alone's article. She hardly wears makeup so the billions of women who do are irrelevant. Because she doesn't. That's all that's relevant, for an emotional Toddler.
For what it's worth, in lieu of logical arguments tendered to support her expressed emotional feelings and in the absence of a sliver of sanity, she feels her feelings very strongly...!
Won't you feel with her too?
nb. Note the twisted result of someone's attempt to get her to stop being so 'Selfish' (as if being like this could ever be in her Self interests). Someone without a clue attempted to force her to consider others; but she doesn't; she merely mechanically adds a qualifier "To me, [screaming Self-less disapproval]."
Lady, I'm not sure I know what a Black woman is supposed to be, but you're batshit insane and you represent the reason why Religion (which kills everyone) is pro-Life. Have a lovely day now!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 2:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's exactly what I thought when I read her post. I was just having a laugh when I sent her the link- didn't actually expect she would read beyond the title.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 2:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry to cause you to vomit, jonny -- but you totally missed the point (which doesn't surprise me).
I was talking about romantic love, not love in general, but then you probably were including that in your ridiculous suggestions.
The anecdotes you spoke of have nothing to do with true love (mating), which I do believe exists; it's just difficult to encounter. Not so much because of the superficiality of "mapping," imo. The type of love I'm referencing doesn't seem to matter to many anymore. They're just not interested; they don't seem to want it. They think they don't 'need' it because of the artifice - the placebo effect of Porn, advertising and the loss of value systems. Now, it's all about "me" - Narcissism - self-aggrandization (importance and power) - not the feeling, giving of oneself to 'each other' in complete and total love and respect that happens mutually. It's chemical in nature, but what I'm talking about goes beyond sex, and doesn't appear to happen randomly or easily. I'm suggesting that a large part of it not being realized is due to one being too focused on 'self and self-importance' that they are incapable of feeling little more than occasional sympathy/empathy - and they erroneously term that romantic love.
What you were talking about was 'abuse.'
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 4:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes Chloe. LOve, sex, friendship, lust and INTIMACY. Here's Badiou : http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2012/08/to-love-truly-is-to-want-other-free.html?zx=76b10f68361b314e And this post was written in reference to all the locks put on a famous tourist site in Paris for lovers to pledge their undying love for each other.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 5:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Women are not crazy about sex and they are not doing this to get sex. They are doing it to fit into the power/knowledge/normality Foucauldian Grid. If you don't doll up and wear make up you are pitied. You are no longer playing the game. I rarely do and I am old, so I often get people handing me money in pity. I kid you not. Some women would be so offended by this that they would say something in anger. I can use the money so I take it and then laugh about it to friends. I know how I look when I am not playing the game at least a little bit as old ladies do. I see why they do it. That's OK with me.
Here's sorta a post I put up on it from the girl's POV as well. It's of Kristen Stewart with her first boyfriend from age 14 to 18.
http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2011/09/kristen-stewart-and-michael-angarano.html Since I put it up on 9-5-11 it has gotten the most hits of any post I have put up going on 27,000 now. I just put it up sort of idly one time, not at all as impassioned as I am about some and have been surprised ever since. I asked a friend how come it's so popular. She said that search gets 40,000,000 hits and I am/ was(?) on page 4. Other than that I can't tell you why it resonates so much.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 7:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
" There is no safe,
everlasting love. The idea
that you can lock two people’s
love once and for all, and toss
the key, is a puerile fantasy.
For Mr. Badiou, love is
inherently hazardous, always
on the brink of failure and
above all vulnerable. " ....
Badiou is right about that reality for many. And perhaps my belief in those that say they still have devotional love in their monogamous relationships after twenty plus years is just naivete ?!! But back to Badiou, those that marry for sex as the only/major attraction - will fail in monogamy because they will always be sexually lusting after others, or will lose desire for their partner. I tend to think that emotional love is stronger than the instinct to propagate. ...It's just that many might not be able to tell the difference.
I suppose he (Badiou) and Sartre/de Beauvoir are saying: stay in multiple sex relationships (polyamory) simultaneously to find happiness ? ..The only way for some, maybe, but no way do I believe fulfillment can be found without an emotionally attached level. Logic tells me that their sexual basis would wane as a group, in just the same way as a couple's superficial basis would. There needs to be an attachment foundation, and sex never has nor ever will be one. Sure, they can keep moving on trying to form new groups, but face it, at some point, with age, it's going to be harder and harder to find 'willing' groups. Plus, I would suspect those groups have gone into risky/dangerous behavior that could cause them to not be satisfied with average people, making it harder to find suitable new groups of people.
Individuals 'might' be able to move into a more promiscuous one-on-one as they get older, but again, I would think a lifetime of polyamory would ruin them for any type of singularity... let alone 'ever' being satisfied in monogamy. Hope I'm wrong.
___
Seymour -- I agree with you, make-up isn't to attract sex or men -- it's to be PC...to fit in with the expected norm. Same with clothes (except at specific times with their men).
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 7:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think Badious means that possessive love constricts, suffocates. You always know right away when it is going to be like that unless you ignore the signs. Sartre and de Beauvoir had a free relationship. Each had other relationships from time to time but their primary commitment was to each other all their lives. It's not promiscuity at all. As de Beauvoir says, "Most men cannot tell the difference between a free woman and a loose woman." I think you are not making this distinction. I cannot even imagine how you can have love without an emotional attachment. It can begin with lust however. But as Lacan says, Desire/Lack are in a relation. No lack, no desire.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 8:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
" Each had other relationships from time to time but their primary commitment was to each other all their lives. It's not promiscuity at all. " ...
We're gonna have to disagree on that one. The word commitment does not imply - sometimes or most of the time...or worse - only when it's convenient.
Free and loose in the context of sex are synonymous in any definition or context of those words, as interpret them. Just because I go back to something (no matter what it is) because availability of something new is in short supply - does not mean I like the old stand-by 'better.' ...It's a simple issue of Availability Heuristics in this context.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 9:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wow that's a cynical thought. Why can't you love more than one person at a time? Neither of them left the other. Beauvoir did not leave Sartre for Nelson Algren, she spent long periods with him and had a different life with him. Same with Sartre and a particular woman he loved. I can't understand I guess either.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 9:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see no cynicism at all -- that word implies being selfish. There isn't anything selfish about "emotional attachment" in love (as a chemical cocktail reaction that does not happen in every love relationship), and having the desire to be mated as a committed couple - what I'm talking about in that reaction, is mutual. If two partners don't have that -- then it's lust -- and yes, people lust after many. They can 'care' about others in a lustful relationship -- but that is not the chemical love relationship that I'm talking about. There is a definite contrast, with the chemical cocktail being different in attachment love that involves two people. Other species mate for life -- humans are a lesser life form, it appears. :)
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 9:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We will just have to agree to disagree as that is my reading after thinking about it for decades and decades. I'm a lot older than you. Things change. You are still under the influence of the Tristan and Iseult legend that has lasted for 800 years in western civilization.It is powerful or it wouldn't have lasted that long.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 10:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I see no cynicism at all -- that word implies being selfish.
I find it too difficult to continue an in depth exploration of a problem with someone who uses words carelessly. Selfish may be a "connotation" you have with cynicism but it is not a "denotation" of a synonym for that word. If the two go together for you fine. But you need to know that you are linking them according to your own emotional feelings and not because they are linked in say a thesaurus, at least I don't think they are even given that loosely put together possibility.
Also this monogamy idea came in for reasons of possession, property, DNA of offspring for inheritance purposes etc. Unless you do a genealogy of marriage you are not going to uncover this. If you think genealogically then it will occur to you right away but in our Dominating Discourse of opposites it doesn't. You and I are in a "language word game" of differences and that is all it is. We can attach all the emotions and morality we want to it, but it is really nothing but a language game because words are separate from what they reference and those references change all the time. There is no representation now and language speaks only to itself just as money only talks to money. Neither are tied to anything.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 10:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This era of thugs is quite different. The technology is there to completely take over so that they can't be escaped from.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 10:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A language word game in that we don't agree or understand the definitions the same. For example, here's an internet definition of the word cynical/cynicism:
" The definition of cynicism is an attitude of suspicion where you believe the future is bleak and that people are acting only out of self interest. " ...It involves distrust. Distrust is the polar opposite of attachment love chemicals' causing devotional love.
So no, I don't see any cynicism in true love. But yes, I do see cynicism in lustful love. It's fleeting and temporary, polyamorous, and based on the Pleasure Principle -- not what I term "Emotional Love."
We don't see this the same due to one of us is approaching this through philosophical theory, and assuming that cynicism is somehow involved at the attachment level, and the other is approaching from biological chemistry of three stages of chemical love, with a different context of love at each level.
Of course we're not going to agree when we're not coming from the same understandings. ..We don't have to agree.
Thank you for the discussion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 12:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry to cause you to vomit, jonny -- but you totally missed the point (which doesn't surprise me).I was talking about romantic love, not love in general, but then you probably were including that in your ridiculous suggestions.
The anecdotes you spoke of have nothing to do with true love (mating), which I do believe exists; it's just difficult to encounter. Not so much because of the superficiality of "mapping," imo. The type of love I'm referencing doesn't seem to matter to many anymore. They're just not interested; they don't seem to want it. They think they don't 'need' it because of the artifice - the placebo effect of Porn, advertising and the loss of value systems. Now, it's all about "me" - Narcissism - self-aggrandization (importance and power) - not the feeling, giving of oneself to 'each other' in complete and total love and respect that happens mutually. It's chemical in nature, but what I'm talking about goes beyond sex, and doesn't appear to happen randomly or easily. I'm suggesting that a large part of it not being realized is due to one being too focused on 'self and self-importance' that they are incapable of feeling little more than occasional sympathy/empathy - and they erroneously term that romantic love.
What you were talking about was 'abuse.'
All love is abuse, but if you have answered my inquiry relating to love's value, I have missed it.
The only sentence which appears to address the question of value is the one I've bolded. So your assertion is that love's value is the giving of oneself to another in complete and total exploitable vulnerability.
Yeah look I can't imagine why people aren't interested in being raped by your religious emotion, Chloe. But maybe if you continue to sell its virtues so effectively, we might yet raise this tired old religious game of exploitation off the mat for another 5000 year round of universal rape, whaddya say?
Love = Rape = Love = Need = Hate = God = Love = War = Slavery.
There are no positives to love. It's a stupid drunk feeling that women use to rape men and children and destroy everything decent and pure and fun.
Would you like another crack at describing the value, from the PoV of the victim infected with it (of course)? We all know what leeches gain from it. It's not working for Humanity.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 12:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see no cynicism at all -- that word implies being selfish. There isn't anything selfish about "emotional attachment" in love (as a chemical cocktail reaction that does not happen in every love relationship), and having the desire to be mated as a committed couple - what I'm talking about in that reaction, is mutual. If two partners don't have that -- then it's lust -- and yes, people lust after many. They can 'care' about others in a lustful relationship -- but that is not the chemical love relationship that I'm talking about. There is a definite contrast, with the chemical cocktail being different in attachment love that involves two people. Other species mate for life -- humans are a lesser life form, it appears. :)
You're missing the point, Chloe. All your values are illogically corrupted. There is nothing negative about cynicism, distrust, suspicion, caution. Anyone in this world who suggests that humans are trustworthy to a child, should be put down (violently and painfully, if required). Get these filthy whores creating misery and exploitation into the ground.
There is nothing positive about trust, love, commitment, emotional slavery. You use "emotional attachment". Tomatoes, tomatoes. It's emotional manipulation and you're so deep in your self-denial and deceit, you just can't see the forest or the trees of inhumanity.
You're having a debate with yourself about lust v commitment. I'm over here yelling at you to tell me why "commitment" is valued.
Chemical slavery. I know about that dark corruption of whore mothers. It prevents humans from acting in their own best interest; we demand to be treated MEAN to be kept KEEN because our mothers are so vile, there would be rivers of blood if people knew the truth. Matrical genocide, if people had even an inkling of the full extent of the malicious horror inflicted onto them for life by mothers who needed to make them suffer.
Or who would want to "take care of her" then?
Back to value. Stop assuming your corrupted values are required. Start explaining the need to chemically poison the minds of children.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 6:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Seymourblogger, it's remarkable that intelligent people like you talk your way out and away upon meeting people like Chloe. It's not rational, I'll dare say that much.
Anonymous, I enjoy your perspective i.e being conscious of connecting our experience to physiological processes. Three stages of chemical love, sounds interesting, guess I'll try to look it up. The tone of your comments make me want to hug someone. It's smart too.. Childish yes but wish we could disagree on something and discuss it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 6:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not interested in spending time searching for internet sources of vast researched/studied information, but I'll pass on one:
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 9:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The problem with it is that it is taking love from the Symbolic Order of Seduction and moving it over into the Order of Production, stealing yet another homeopathic dose of reality from us.
Chloe is writing about romantic love. It has a name. It is Courtly Love and it began in the 12th century when it intersected with Catharism. It has some necessary conditions:
1. Long slow contemplative time; the kind of time that no longer exists to promote longing.
2. Chastity is another necessary condition. Without chastity which engenders Lack, there can be no Desire.
3. The desire to be ONE. The passion to be joined forever. Denis de Rougemont describes it in his History of Love in the Western World and he damns it in favor of agape, the love of neighbor, the friend, the partner. And he says few people afflicted of passion/love ever want to be cured of it. Chloe is one such even in imagination so virulent a virus (de Rougemont) it is.
It is really passion/love/Death, the Death part being concealed except for Emily Bronte, Wagner's Tristan and Iseult and strangely enough Stephenie Meyer, who condemns Bella to the Death of Virtual Reality.
Tristan and Iseult is a 12th century legend beginning in the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine and her troubadours going from France to England when she marries Henry. The Cathars were a religious sect of Catholicism destined to be purged by the Catholic Church by burnings at the stake and awful interrogations. They believed the world was evil so it was evil to bring children into it; hence, sexual passion without consummation, endless chastity.
OF COURSE this produced a chemical change in the bodies of those practicing its rituals! I mean DUH! Does science have to get their fingers meddling into everything just to convince people that it is true. We have Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrillard not missing a beat in all this by elaborating The Inscription of the Body. Heloise's letters discovered int he 1800's or 18th century still do not apologize for her passion for Abelard, her body that is forever changed, her refusal to deny this experience or turn it into penance. Of course The Inscription of the Body changes the body, changes its organs, its blood, its cells into the microscopic aspects of the body (Deleuze). Do we really need crappy psychologists etc to tell us this in terms of chemical physiological processes which came into being to fight "vitalism?"
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 10:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is simply Courtly Love which began in the 12th century with the legend of Tristan and Iseult. Stephenie Meyer has written extensively of it in her Twilight Saga and she does not shirk from its true meaning: DEATH. Bella dies into the immortality of Virtual Reality.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 10:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well Chloe the great Foucault has said about his long term partner Daniel Defert, that it began in lust and ended in love. So much for your premise. Probably you are correct when it comes to conventional people.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 10:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see no cynicism at all -- that word implies being selfish. There isn't anything selfish about "emotional attachment" in love (as a chemical cocktail reaction that does not happen in every love relationship), and having the desire to be mated as a committed couple - what I'm talking about in that reaction, is mutual. If two partners don't have that -- then it's lust -- and yes, people lust after many. They can 'care' about others in a lustful relationship -- but that is not the chemical love relationship that I'm talking about. There is a definite contrast, with the chemical cocktail being different in attachment love that involves two people. Other species mate for life -- humans are a lesser life form, it appears. :)
I suggest you read Foucault's History of Sexuality. If you think genealogically the intersection of marriage and commitment and capitalism brought it into being. It was necessary to care for children, raise them without dying, healthy enough to produce and consume. That is cynical and it is also the truth. Marriage is tied to property. That is also cynical, but is it false. Lacan has defined marriage as "a legal contract giving each party the legal and exclusive ownership of the other's sexual organs." Cynical yes, and true. Paris rose in a furor at him for saying this.
Chloe talks about "true love" and (mating) which she puts in parentheses and where she gets this I throw up my hands. What in hell is "true love" except in a fairy tale. Now if you follow de Rougemont in his Levi-Straussian structuralist analysis of romantic love reading through de Rougemont who first published his History of Sexuality in the Western World in 1940 when Levi-Strauss was just beginning his studied in primitive cultures, beating him to it, so it must have been in the hair. Foucault extends it reading through Nietzsche and so we have the genealogical tool kit which dispenses with make-believe like "true love" and chemical measurement. If you can measure it it exists say the pseudo scientists. "An object does not exist until and unless it is observed." - William Burroughs. If you are going to write about romantic love then KEEP IT IN THE ORDER OF SEDUCTION WHERE IT BELONGS, not in correlation with physiological processes.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 10:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Chloe's thinking is muddled. She is talking about a time that is over. As Nietzsche says, something can only be described well when it is over, finished. Stephenie Meyer did this with Twilight in describing Courtly Love. She did a perfect job of it. http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2011/10/reading-twilight-through-foucauldian.html A quick post on it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 10:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yet, conversely…
“ And yet the hegemony of vitalism is attested to by the fact that even these antonyms are the sites for new vitalisms: the vitalisms of contagion, viral vitalisms, the exploit, undead vitalism, ‘dark vitalism,’ etc. The hegemony of vitalism is such that it seems to absorb and delimit any putative anti-vitalism. Scott Lash remarks that: ‘[in] vitalism life is not at all counterposed to death. Instead, death is part of life. Our future is always inorganic matter. Death is seen as entropic, part of a recombinant life process.’[4] He goes on to state that: ‘[v]italism will sit well with the idea of death, the virus, etc.’[5] Nothing is so bad that it can’t serve life, and so the proliferation of life, theoretically and politically, seems to know no limit, penetrating everywhere without reserve, its fecundity giving the measure of its necessity. “
We again will have to disagree..
"Nite" Seymour & all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 10:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The link:
http://www.academia.edu/689255/The_Poverty_of_Vitalism_and_the_Vitalism_of_Poverty_
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 15, 2013 11:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I read 4 pages and all pages were a confusion of name dropping of stylish and important authors in the field of philosophy bleeding into everything that can be attached to it. It is written in the Dominating Discourse of the classical Hegelian dialectic concerning the "concept" of vitalism. Not being willing to subject myself any more to Noys's paper I prefer to always go to the originals Noys's is writing about in a superficial way in a dying Discourse. I'll pass on this paper and Noys. I try to avoid secondary sources. It's bad enough that I am one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 1:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I keep coming across things for you. Here's Mladen Dolar's The Speaking Lion on Wittgenstein and the rules of language games for that is what your "mother" is playing with you and then with you and your sister.
What does it involve to follow a rule if rules constantly turn out to be duplicitous and treacherous?
http://www.helsinki.fi/collegium/english/staff/Wallgren/speaking_lion-dolar.pdf
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 2:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
SB: Wow that's a cynical thought. Why can't you love more than one person at a time?
Because love is the most sociopathic needy emotion imaginable. It excludes Humanity to enable the predator to suck the life out of its human prey, in privacy. When the needy predator (who cannot live life without destroying the lives of others and yet, inexplicably, doesn't have the decency to exit stage left) has sucked the will to live and all of the value out of a victim, they don't have the decency to humanely dispose of the carcass. They just dump their bio-hazardous waste like roadkill along the highway of life, steamrolling over every consideration of decency or sanity with their Toddler sociopathic certainty. They're just following their (needy) heart.
But the dead carcasses get confused, conflating survival with being alive. It's a common mistake; 100 billion have made it. Utterly dead and existentially worthless, they become a liability when they suppress reality (that place where they've been raped to death). Oblivious to their terminated status, the undead slowly become reanimated over time. But this should not be confused with "coming back to life". They're damaged, broken goods; using love to rape because love raped them (and because love is literally all they know so they Know Best).
When the carcasses are being dumped, in defiance of every consideration of etiquette (which explicitly calls for carcasses to take their rapes and murders with good cheer, "Think Positive"), they have been known to generate awkwardness by demanding their murderer reveal their motive for murdering them. They want to know "Why?"
Why, indeed. Why was there a need for love? What was the motive for infecting the loser of love's exchange (there are no winners) with the emotion that everyone (except those stupid children who can't see the insanity of whores coming - and the insanity of your failing to come to their rescue) knows will leave you insane, exploitable, vulnerable and rapable?
Morons ask "Why?" but the predators get all awkward because it's just not the done thing to demand to know from someone their reasons for raping and murdering you before dumping your carcass, with love. It's just not Right! Needy predators will invariably say something utterly valueless and nauseating like:
"It's not you. It's me."
___________
Sociopaths are the most loving beasts of all because they feel love correctly (as it was intended to be felt); they love truly in order to be truly convincing (if only in the moment of truth). Sociopaths never lie; it's impossible to be a convincing emotional fraud. They are never fraudulent (in their moments of truth). But place a sociopath in a new moment (perhaps with only half an hour separating the two moments), and they could be loving another human being as purely and honestly and exclusively as any needy sociopath has ever loved their prey.
They're not lying. The lie is love. The lie is felt truly (and as variably) as needed; from needy moment to needy moment.
For what it's worth, they feel the way they feel very strongly. Won't you feel what they feel with them, when they know their feelings are truly felt? If you don't, or cannot, of what possible use are you? When you cannot be used by a sociopath (for example, if you only valued truth), they will treat you like a carcass because that's the Christian hijack. They treat everyone with malice and hold onto non-malice as an ostensible favour they use to reward only Special people (who please them).
I'm of no use to whores.* So they invariably treat me like a carcass (in their moment) but then how people treat you only reduces you if you are capable of being reduced. You have to value the expressed, invalidated opinions of whores for them to have any power over you.
* nb. Ironically, by virtue of corruption, I'm invariably stalked by needy, worthless Toddlers other men (idiotically) pine for after the Toddlers have been horrifically cruel to them.
You can value their psychotic screaming expression of insane feeling, if you need to; but your need to value something doesn't make it true. If you have no need, you'll be more sane than your mother's rape of you was intended to produce. You would have no need for the whores' Emotional Currency, if you weren't raised Right.
You would not be providing value in exchange for their expressed feelings of gratitude, in the moment of them truly exploiting you (many moments after you were truly setup to be exploited - "What, is this the thanks I get?")
Mothers need their children to say "Please" and "Thank you". When you understand why - when you can explain the actual value of what is literally screamed sociopathic insanity raping the minds of children insane - you will know the truth and the truth will make you scream.
It doesn't matter how genuine leeches feel when they express their deepest gratitude and appreciation with words; they're lying because their psychotic needy words have no value. And neither do their psychotic needy feelings; I don't care what your whore mother led you to believe.
She's a lying whore creating liabilities and you only need to take one look at you to be nauseated by the truth of your worthless, misery-generating existence. You're worth less than worthless! Stop lying.
You need to lie because you have no value. If you had value, you wouldn't need to be a sociopath leaning on everyone else. If you had Self, you would have value as you. For real.
"You don't deserve my real." - what whores say when they have nothing of value to sell or trade; it's the Christian hijack of malice 'justified' by Toddler rationalisation (they will represent decency and honesty and non-malice as a glorified favour to you, if you please them by giving in their terrorist demands).
What was Narcissus' crime? He just refused to be raped by the unsolicited, valueless imposition of their worthless needy.
Let the story of Narcissus serve as a (heroic) lesson to men to love your Self so much that you have no need for a psychotic whore's worthless echoes.
There is a reason Alone is alone and that reason is utterly lost on you.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 3:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
*sound of crickets chirruping*
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 3:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stop trying to be TLP. You're not good at it.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 3:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
'There is a reason Alone is alone and that reason is utterly lost on you.'
The irony of this statement, considering its source, is palpable.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 11:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dude, there is something you need to consider here.
Either you are a genius, seeing though the fog that keeps the rest of us humans in the dark and everlasting spiral of self torment. Or. You are broken on a fundamental level, unable empathize with or comprehend human interaction on a level so basic and intrinsic to the rest of us that it eludes any reasonable description through language.
Now, regardless of which of these is true, I want you to ask yourself something:
"From an outside perspective, does it matter which one of these is the actual case?"
Maybe you should try to work on your delivery, because, genius or broken, all the rest of us see is a man frothing and raving about nonsense.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 4:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes if he worked on his Discourse it would help. Evidently he needs to vent the rage before he can do that. That kind of repetitive rage needs to be worked through on the couch. You can't get to creativity as long as it is blocked by rage. But you can use rage to unleash your creativity. Sometimes you need help doing that. Most therapists are about helping you fit in to the normal though, so he needs to be careful about that, and find someone to work with not into that. Unfortunately not many of them are.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 4:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think he's about half right. I think emotions that we have have been for want of a better term "hacked" in order to get us to do things that we would never do.
I've said so before. Our culture has a funged up idea of the meaning of love. Love exists, it's a normal human emotion that all humans feel. But, what our culture has done is turned the idea of love into Romance, the two are different. (Greeks were smarter than us having a whole bunch of words for love) Now romantic love is all about erotic desire, about warm fuzzies and wanting to get into the other person's pants. It's all consuming and intense. And of course, being a capitalist culture, ideally, romantic love must be shown by buying something, and you better not be cheap, because a woman or man is trained to know approximate values, and your worth is judged by the worth of the gift. None of this has a thing to do with "love". It's gotten so that the two people in "love" don't know each other. Which isn't real. Real lovers would know each other.
The two things are different. Love itself, the deep connection between people, it exists. People do have said emotions. Even a baby feels love, they smile at people they love. It's normal, but it's something that the culture has put hooks into to turn a normal human emotion into another excuse for CONSUMPTION, because Western Culture essentially teaches people that nothing they do in the world is "real" until it's remarked by a purchase of some sort. I guess if you graduate high school, your diploma doesn't count unless everyone comes to your house to give you a PURCHASED present.
The point is that emotions are real and natural. babies love, babies get pissed, babies get happy, babies get sad. YOu don't have to teach them to feel things, but you do teach them how to appropriately express those emotions -- which is where the problem lies. We teach people to expresss emotions in ways that support the Matrix, and anything that doesn't fit that Matrix is bad.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 16, 2013 4:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your comment offers a way into Baudrillard. As you have used it: Love. Love is in the Order of Symbolic Seduction. When it gets commercialized, it enters the Order of Production of which its primary attribute is that it is irreversible. This means that a homeopathic dose of reality has been stolen from you. Love doesn't get stolen wholesale but little by little over your life until the Order of Production has completely absorbed it. All you have left is a faint whisper from early fairy tales or feelings when a baby. The Legend of Tristan and Iseult survives very weakly now that The Pill has taken over sex/love.
Your comment reveals a different ordering of the world from the Foucauldian matrix, grid, net of power/knowledge/capital/sexuality and this is Baudrillard. The two orders: the Symbolic Order of Seduction and the Order of Production. One being reversible the other irreversible. We move between them and we do not know it most of the time. Right now I am in the Order of Production in explaining this to you. Were I in the Order of Seduction I would maybe be writing this poetically, or making a film such as Helen Hunt's The Sessions. Where she is acting as a sexual surrogate for the disabled young man. In the beginning she is treating sex in the Order of Production in initiating him into the practice for payment because that is her job. In the end she loves him so it is reversed from Tristan and Iseult. What is similar however is the experience of time in both. Slow contemplative time the necessary variable to experience love. People living fast, hurried, obsessively detailed lives do not have the time to devote to love. Time has also been stolen from us. computers were to make our work easier, now they create more work for us, take up more of our time, as we talk in Virtual Reality instead of face to face.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 11:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Other species mate for life -- humans are a lesser life form, it appears. :)
You do not value truth which is why you embarrass yourself with meaningless assertions. The above is screaming insanity; evidenced not by the the fact that it's a bold-faced, brazen lie but by the fact that it appears to be a bold-faced, brazen lie. It's just an expression of your feelings.
You'd prefer to be working with truth because working with lies isn't easy and you're about to discover your fears, in this instance, were well-founded; but it's just not a deal-breaker with you. That above claim wouldn't be as brazen a lie if you hadn't attempted to finagle what I can instantly spot as Toddler wordplay; i.e. plausible deniability.
I didn't know shit until I saw your lie burning off the page and this gave me pause; because "Why would she say [other species] instead of saying the other species?" so I looked it up and laughed. Now I know why. You're so perfectly vile, it's just farcical.
You're not insane, and you're not stupid. You're not bright enough to be either. You're below insane and stupid on the totem pole of human (in)sanity; your EQ is a negative value and that cannot be said for the insane or stupid because they usually aren't malicious. Not like entitled whores, in any case, with their Right to be malicious.
The truth, which I have no doubt you do know, is that there are many species who mate for life but they're philanders and adulterers. You were lying by omission. The only species that fits your narrow constructed leaching vision is below:
http://www.wonderquest.com/animal-mate-for-life.htmOne species is absolutely monogamous. In the black darkness of the deep sea, the tiny male anglerfish (perhaps one tenth the female’s size) detects and follows the scent trail of a female of his own species. Once found, he bites his chosen one and hangs on. His skin fuses to hers, their bodies grow together (he gets his food through a common blood supply and becomes essentially a sperm producing organ). They mate for life — a short life for the male.
Hardly a superior life form; but the irony is that your smilie-faced conclusion is in fact, accurate. Because of leaching whores who lie to children; human EQ is below that of chimpanzees, Bonobo monkeys and even dogs (studies in collectivism and conformity have shown). For verification, Google is your friend; but if you valued truth, you'd already know that.
Humans fight wars with humans over imaginary lines drawn on cartoon maps. Humans prey on their young. They live in Polite Societies where you can say any vile passive-aggressive thing you like but only the truth offends. It isn't my opinion that those who don't value truth are insane, you know? It's ridiculous that I have to argue the fact that humans are batshit insane.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 1:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Trumpeter swans mate for life as well. Whatever.
I don't think humans are meant to be monogamous for life, and actually, what we do now is unique in history. The most common relationship is polygamy, or at best serial monogamy. Abraham and Jacob both had more than one wife, Solomon had 100 concubines, and the Israelis were not alone in that. Harems were a common thing thousands of years ago. It was only later on that "one man, one woman, in romantic love, for life" was a real thing. Up until then, it wasn't the case. The kings of Europe were inbred freaks because they didn't marry for love, but for politics. And "life" back then was from 16 or so to the ripe old age of 40, not 16 to 90+, the way we do it. A person isn't going to change radically from the teen years to old age? Get real, the old 90 year old would have little in common with his 16 year old self.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 2:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, that was my point - that many species do mate for life. I find that interesting in that before evolution added logic/reasoning to our genetics, we only had human nature/emotion/instinct to control us--which in my mind, would mean promiscuity. If species we regard as 'lesser' do not have the capability of logic/reasoning, then it would be easy to assume they would remain in the nature/emotion/instinct realm...yet, they all don't !! ..Obviously, there is something that can override the instinct to propagate -- my point. In humans we call it a level of love as "emotional attachment love."
Or, is it possible that when we evolved a higher intelligence (some of us) of 'logic/reasoning/environmental influence' that eventually blended with our DNA's "natures/instincts/emotions" in our neurochemistry - that forms our decisions for preference and survival - allowed us to use 'nurture,' in the sense of environmental logic, to make decisions that resulted in longevity?
The Kings/Queens and other Royalty caused a shorter life-span through the spreading of VD, which we know causes mental disorder as well as viral/cancerous conditions affecting many of the organs including the heart = shorter life span.
My personal belief is that over time, logic became a part of our genetics, monogamy became less a lifestyle choice, but now 'nature' of devoted love and singular focus/attraction - not an environmental determinant any longer (an "epi-mark" perhaps is involved.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 4:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your reasoning sounds very logical and reasonable, but it is faulty because it is based on faulty premises. I am not going to go into it here, but you do need to read and study more up to date science and Foucault on the human sciences. Evolution is in question and not just by religious creationists. Your hypotheses are based on theories that are o longer being used in serious work. Yes I know the journals are still full of this but that's because the Dominating Discourse is still based on classical Hegelian opposites which is a rusty thinking mechanism. It provokes arguing and interpretation, which, BTW is no longer used as one can never get to the bottom of anything using it. There is always another interpretation when you think you have explained something satisfactorily such as you just did. There is no point in my discussing this with you as I must enter the Discourse of the dialectic to do so. And within it all we can do is play intellectual ping pong.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 5:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My perspectives are not based on religion at all, but rather historical and proven science of what crossed the blood/brain barrier and their effects. Additionally, the field of Epigenetics is a VERY current and up-to-date area of study, including cancer research and neurology/dementia.
"Philosophy" is 'only' that.
I do find it interesting, but certainly not an 'answer' to human physiology/neurology.
We're approaching the discussion from an apple vs. oranges perspective. That never works, because we're essentially always making different points that have no intellect in common.
Two people have to be on the same page before they can begin to communicate--that's true in any subject matter.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 5:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think humans are meant to be monogamous for life, and actually, what we do now is unique in history,
Let's just go with this sentence: "humans are meant" - "meant" infers that someone or something is meaning this. Who or what? And don't tell me evolution because that is not an explanation. Your sentence is a leftover from God as Sovereign who rules the world and us in it.
Monogamy is tied up with marriage which can be analyzed genealogically and has been. In his Biopolitics Foucault begins this discussion when capitalism becomes a growing force in Europe (he is only doing Europe for the most part and only the past 300 years.)The state required workers and consumers as part of a growing population and this required lowering the infant and child mortality rate. Foucault's power/knowledge/ capital relation helps one's thinking here. The state propagandized marriage for the lower classes so that the two parents would be around to raise the children so the new bio-population would increase. The people of the state were now seen as assets to the state instead of something to be endured. They began to provide wealth to the state in many different forms, so we have marriage and children being taken care of by adults instead of turned loose on their own.
It is the intersection of population growth and capitalism that made an historical CUT in civilization. This CUT was an unprecedented Event that could not have been predicted, accounted for, planned for in terms of cause and effect. So to reason via cause and effect will take you astray.
THE PILL and other forms of effective birth control are intersecting with global world cyber-capital that has no restraints. This is an Event that is unprecedented and cannot be controlled using traditional classical solutions from the past. The solutions will have to be invented and it doesn't look like there are many on hand with the brains to do this. There are many observers, but by its nature it cannot be controlled so we go from Event to Event in a world driven by Events as we saw in Boston on Monday. That Event will have consequences for all of us. The charade of Homeland Security has been exposed, and HS was really a Deterrence "floating sign" acting as a mask to cover the fact that it is an EMPTY sign. Hope you got that. We are more and more in Simulated Reality. There is no true there and no false, just credibility. The credibility may be different for you and for me as our standards differ, but credibility cannot be proven true or false. Credibility circulates in cyber-space. The fact that it has been put there gives it credibility. It cannot be proven false. EVER.
To listen to the media talking heads speculating on "different theories" when they are speculating on different hypotheses is not giving me a feeling that anyone knows anything about what they are saying. They all are just blathering in order to say something into the microphone. There seem to be no adults in charge. Only toddlers who misuse words which prevents them from thinking clearly because that's all we've got.
When you write a sentence like that right straight off you indicate unclear thinking that is based on erroneous premises. How can you ever figure out anything that way?
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 5:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I doubt it's evolved. Evolution simply doesn't work that fast -- the chimp and us parted ways millions of years ago and we share over 95% of our DNA. We've also gone from hunter gatherers to post industrial societies within 10K years, or more recently from agrarians to industrials to post-industrials, yet our DNA still reflects our wild origins. I don't think it's possible that we'd still have hunter-gatherer proclivities and naturally selected skill sets if we were changing rapidly.
Seymore, what do you mean that no one is seriously using evolution in biological studies? I think it depends on how you define serious study -- if you study the structure and function of human anatomy and physiology, you have to use evolution to understand that. Brain structure is much the same thing, a lot of things that we do that doesn't make sense in a modern context does make sense when considering it in the light of how early humans would have lived.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 5:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I didn't say your perspectives were based on religion. That is a misreading. I just took their argument into account on Evolution, but there are far better reasons why the theory is not what we should be continuing to think with.
There is no such thing as "proven" science. All this is just the present Discourse. You are in it and it is the Dominating Discourse right now. Yes there are some fine new cures for cancer, but are they considering the fact of cancer at all? Philosophy is addressing the way people think about the things they think about. If someone such as yourself is thinking in a Discourse that is being undermined, then your way of thinking needs to be adjusted or changed. So far you see no need to do this as you are comfortable with the status quo. The staus quo, BTW, has gotten the world to the place it is in now. How can it explain Boston? The govt and the media are going to speculate themselves to death on this. Do you think any of them play Virtual Reality Games?
I have different speculations. But that's all they are. Just speculations. And I do not have the TV cameras on me to listen to what I have to say since only blathering idiots are being listened to. On NPR the day of the Oklahoma Bombing someone call in suggested it was the anniversary of Ruby Ridge and they were hung up on. Now everyone has factored in anniversary Events.One media news guy did it last night tying it to the Revolutionary War, and others I didn't pay much attention to as I was paying attention to the drivel that was passing for serious news reporting. Only it wasn't. It was like an Event at high school that started a gossip chain. I am dumbfounded.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 5:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think suggesting and discussing religion is a red herring argument/fallacy. I did not suggest religion regarding monogamy, but rather an adaptation in our genetics. You're using irrelevancy to divert attention from my original point to give yourself an opening to name drop philosophers that you regard as important and correct in answering human behavior/issues. I disagree that they are correct, necessarily.
Again, apples vs. oranges.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 5:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
when considering it in the light of how early humans would have lived
There you go right there. That last sentence of yours demands interpretation. You can make one. B can make a counter one. C can try to combine the two. D can pose a different one. E can.............
Do you see where it is going or can go? This is what's wrong with the Dialectic in its classical form. Zizek has posed a way out in his Less than Nothing 1000+ tome on Hegel reading through Lacan and Lacan reading through Hegel which deepens the thought of both these great minds. Baudrillard did it with Foucault in his Forget Foucault.
I'll say it again. Your thinking is outdated. The information you have is not. The knowledge you have is not. "Knowledge is not for knowing, knowledge is for CUTTING." - Foucault
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 6:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The only thing I can see that might have led you to think I was bringing in religion is my sentence on Creationism in discussing Evolution. I only meant it as an aside. I am not basing my thinking or anything else on Creationism. Darwin is not under fire from Creationism. Darwin is under fire from far different corners.I believe some Creationists have grabbed that reasoning to label it Creationism, bot only in a very superficial way. Darwin is under attack scientifically by serious scientific academics.
I was dipping into a book the other day by a physicist explaining particle theory and string theory to the unwashed masses like myself. They were getting uneven results from their model in the accelerator in Geneva. They couldn't figure out why. One grad assistant I think explored the effect of the high tide and voila, that was the variable. Now we get into Rudolph Steiner and his Biodynamic gardening thinking. Planting according to the moon etc. Say you want to have an oak tree that will produce truffles. You plant the acorn during a full moon (or waning or new I forget)and that oak tree will produce truffles says some recent advisor. Someone told me this and thought it was illy. I told her it came from Steiner. I have never done this BTW. But I had just read the physics tidbit and it didn't seem silly at all to me now,(tides and moon correlation you know). Steiner's work on gardening and animals is profound. Does out science use it? Of course not. The tides and moon are not in the Dominating Discourse. But many Steiner followers do it the way he advises.If you get out of the Discourse, you begin thinking differently and there is more out there that is being overlooked.
Go play some Grand Theft Auto or read the sites that talk and comment about it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 6:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see you are throwing my name drop comment to Chloe back at me. I name-drop to ensure that my reasoning about something is not mistaken for my own thinking. I wish it were but it's not. I just apply the thinking of someone else in a different way. I see through their eyes. And now I can't unsee nor do I want to. Chloe simply quotes authorities, she is not thinking here and neither are you.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 6:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I might have replied to the wrong name, if so, I apologize. The 'voice' is very similar amongst several.
Plus, I don't find this system of notification very appealing. The emails are not always telling me who made the comment, then when I 'finally' get over here (because the system is so slow, I have to search for the comment to reply.
I've most likely replied in error several times, due to those conditions.
I need to leave. Thanks for the discussion today.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree. The software sucks big time. Here's what I have figured out: go to the top of the comment in the email and click to link to the last psychiatrist. Click on END button on keyboard then go up to the comment above the space for your comment. It should be the one in the email. Hit reply and the empty comment space will mark that it is a reply to the comment in your email. Answer and post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 7:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It sure does suck big time!
I must have done something wrong (always thought I was pretty good at following directions, too!:)
After I hit "End" it dumped me at about the middle of this huge comment section.
I'll keep playing with it, tho.. Thanx, anon!!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2013 11:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hit END until you get there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 18, 2013 8:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, ok, so what about our biological fear responses? Our flight/fight response makes sense for wild creatures that need to pump up our systems to have the energy to run away from lions. In most modern humans, that response is not only not helpful, but it's actually contributing to death by causing heart problems. It also helps us be controlled because our brains cannot think rationally in the presence of a fear response -- so if people can make us afraid enough we'll do things that we'd never do under rational control.
That's evolutionary theory -- the thing evolved so as we could outrun lions still exists and is best described by evolution. If you didn't have that response wouldn't live as long as those who did. In a million years, it might be gone, as I said it can shorten your life and make you do things that in hindsight would be absolutely stupid.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 18, 2013 1:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
All that you say is true altho it is a mish mash of evolutionary theory and psychology. BUT IT IS A DISCOURSE! And all Discourses are subject to obsolescence. Your answer is also an interpretive one and can be re-interpreted by someone with greater knowledge than you as you are sort of going on a sound bite of Darwin and a sound bite of William James's Psychology or is it The History of Psychology - forget which. This is the problem with the present simulacrum of education for the purpose of certifications, paper degrees for future employment, etc.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 18, 2013 5:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
if you would do the readership a favor,
1. could you clarify what you mean by "obsolescence"?
2. why is an "interpretive" answer bad/problematic?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 18, 2013 11:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Since you asked so nice:
1.People are bred to breed,and those breeders are bred to breed. We are bred to breed, to become consumers and producers, to work in jobs until we are obsolescent. This is happening sooner now than it used to. Men used to work for one company or corporation their whole lives. Now they must continue to reinvent their lives to avoid early obsolescence. But obsolete they will become without fail. Women always became obsolescent when they lost their looks and after they had children. Now that they have gained some measure of equality they can also become obsolescent in the marketplace too. Are you allowing yourself to be used up too?
2.Interpretations are problematic because they continue endlessly.There is always another interpretation underneath the one that is said to be the final answer to the problem or statement. Nothing can ever be finalized altho people will try to finalize something until the day they die. A great blog post on it on the musical scale and tonality is perfect as an explanation.http://naudengels.blogspot.com/2013/02/vaguely-i-was-aware-of-it-but-i-never.html
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 19, 2013 12:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
From Krishnamurti: http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/index.php
Where there is respectability there is no order
Most parents unfortunately think they are responsible for their children and their sense of responsibility takes the form of telling them what they should do and what they should not do, what they should become and what they should not become. The parents want their children to have a secure position in society. What they call responsibility is part of that respectability they worship; and it seems to me that where there is respectability there is no order; they are concerned only with becoming a perfect bourgeois. When they prepare their children to fit into society they are perpetuating war, conflict and brutality. Do you call that care and love?
Jiddu Krishnamurti was born on 11 May 1895 in Madanapalle, a small town in south India. He and his brother were adopted in their youth by Dr Annie Besant, then president of the Theosophical Society. Dr Besant and others proclaimed that Krishnamurti was to be a world teacher whose coming the Theosophists had predicted. To prepare the world for this coming, a world-wide organization called the Order of the Star in the East was formed and the young Krishnamurti was made its head.In 1929, however, Krishnamurti renounced the role that he was expected to play, dissolved the Order with its huge following, and returned all the money and property that had been donated for this work.
From then, for nearly sixty years until his death on 17 February 1986, he travelled throughout the world talking to large audiences and to individuals about the need for a radical change in mankind.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 19, 2013 12:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Women always became obsolescent when they lost their looks and after they had children. Now that they have gained some measure of equality...
I don't like it how you are right but you simply ignore the fact that they choose this obsolescence (after the acid of course; just a little shove requiring constant spraying lest humans default into being humane - God forbid!)
You accuse me of repetition and I proudly accept the charge. You accuse me of venting and you're out of line. I'll stop repeating the truth when women stop trying to smear men with exploitation that is 100% perpetuated by women's lies to men. It's not acceptable to concede I'm right and then expect me not to repeat it. Why aren't you repeating it? The above suggests men are responsible for women's obsolescence.
Why are you defending your gender like that ludicrous defence of that filthy whore who refuses to answer my questions on Disqus? Why aren't you loyal to Humanity? This whole world needs to become loyal to what is true. We really have no more need for these vulnerabilities that women being "taken care of" by men so love to exploit.
Loyalty is only ever used by those who do not want to be in the right; they want to be in the wrong and they want their loyal victims to be alongside them or fighting for their malicious cause.
Trust is only ever used by those who have a problem with transparency.
Love is only ever used by those who are motivated with inducing emotional vulnerability with malicious intent (there is no need for men to be vulnerable for Chloe; she's just trying to setup the emotional rape). She can't explain why there's a need for men or children to be vulnerable. All risk. No reward.
_____________
It is very true that they are obsolescent after giving birth. But they're useless because they've spent their entire lives choosing to become useless by embracing deceit and investing in body > mind. It is this combination that gives them motive to make their children dependent on them rather than independent (love is conducive to which of the two?)
Again, women choose to be obsolescent and then when faced with their Self-inflicted uselessness, rather than do the decent thing they just default into unconscionable abuse of their children (destroying their entire lives by manufacturing needy out of sanity; i.e. raising children Right).
The only heroes this world has ever produced have been spinsters with cats.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
April 19, 2013 4:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Where there is respectability there is no order Most parents unfortunately think they are responsible for their children and their sense of responsibility takes the form of telling them what they should do and what they should not do, what they should become and what they should not become. The parents want their children to have a secure position in society. What they call responsibility is part of that respectability they worship; and it seems to me that where there is respectability there is no order; they are concerned only with becoming a perfect bourgeois. When they prepare their children to fit into society they are perpetuating war, conflict and brutality. Do you call that care and love?
Truth.
But he's being way too generous. We all know the truth. I no longer accept that everyone is blind and stupidly uncomprehending. They're just psyched about child exploitation. It's their turn now. I get that.
"Stand up to bullies."
Is that what you do? A bully exploits a disparity in size / confidence / intelligence / capacity for malice. What is it called when a mother lies to her child about Santa? Or violently overrides the child's will with her own? Bullies are cowards. That men won't stand up to them has empowered them.
"But I never hit women."
How are they to be dissuaded from bullying defenceless children?
Parents scream their children into suicides, bullying, violence, competitive sports, beauty pageants for the commodities to compete for creeps; Tiger mothers right across the world who cannot feel pain because they're sociopaths have been making men suffer to please them for as long as they can remember; of course they're going to do the same thing with their kids. They're just riding on the backs of their promising children, hoping to leverage the child's work into into imagined social prestige for them.
"Oh my son is in law school."
*blushes with pride*
Vomit.
I want you Polite Society truth-haters to look at this image and this video ***Warning: Not Suitable for Polite Society*** and you look me direct in the monitor and type out your opinion on whether Toddler mothers are breeding sociopaths or not.
"Do you call that care and love?"
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
April 19, 2013 5:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First you do not GET Foucault. Power/knowledge is a relation, a function of each other as on x and y axes. You cannot have one without the other. Both feed and diminish each other. Add the slashes of capital/normality to the function and you can see the GRID, the MATRIX, the NET everyone is in. The same was true where you grew up as a child. The only difference for you was that "normality" there was not the same as "normality" outside the compound. Are you with me so far?
The Grid will be slightly different in different families and different classes, and different locations. You will learn to speak in the Dominating Discourse, which means you will write and think in the Dominating Discourse. OK so far?
The ones that learn to think outside all this are rare, and this applies to wherever in the Grid they are. And how severe the punishment for going outside are. Galileo was threatened with being burned at the stake for "thinking and speaking" outside the earth centered Discourse.
Everyone - EVERYONE - is being bred for obsolescence. It is only the artists who know that they are and choose to opt out of it at a great risk. Anyone in the Order of Production is assigning themselves the fate of obsolescence. Playing poker for high stakes is opting out of it. Please do not stop it. Someone who plays poker is playing for other reasons than money and profit as you well know. The money is the exchange for being right as long as the deck is not stacked. Baudrillard liked to gamble. He has said that the gambler knows that there is no such thing as money. This is also what Eric Packer does in DeLillo's Cosmopolis. Only he is gambling in cyber capital currency transactions. And there is a moment in the novel when he gets it that money is just numbers floating in the air. And for him women are just pleasure to be enjoyed like a good meal. Intimacy has no part of the relation. Women are the same. They used to fool themselves with love but now they don't. They take pleasure and when they see age coming they settle. But the men they settle with have also come to the same conclusion so they form an unspoken partnership of affection, friendship, companionship etc if they are lucky. Sometimes lust turns into love but it is rare. And the ritual of Courtly Love which intensified lust/love/passion/longing/death depends on time - long slow contemplative time.
Young Girl does not just apply to females. It is for males also. Have you forgotten that part of the paper by tiqqun? BOTH are caught in the Foucauldian Grid. Both think in it. Both feel in it as they are interfaced with it.
Your own Discourse is still oppositional. This means you are still in the classical Hegelian Dominating Discourse of opposites that is a dying dinosaur. You can stay in it of course, your choice. But if you do you are doomed just as surely as any other person you are arguing with. You are mostly correct, but the way you think in it is useless to you and to others. You will be right but you will perish. You do not have to give anything up to change your thinking. You just have to understand that you are everyday more and more in Simulated Reality and what is more simulated than having ranting discussions with people across the globe who may or may not be invested in what they write here. What could be more simulated than that! In simulated reality there is no ture, no false. Just get that simple one thing. NO TRUE AND NO FALSE. In simulated reality there is only CREDIBILITY. Once it is out there in cyber-space IT IS CREDIBLE BECAUSE IT IS OUT THERE! Credibility can NEVER be disproved. It can be undermined but it can not be disproved. ANYTHING can be credible. NOTHING can be disproved. So if you continue to argue about lies and truth and falsity you are pissing in the wind.
Now to see FLOATING SIGNS that signify is necessary. But also to see "floating signs" acting as MASKS to affirm, deny, modify, simplify, say empty, is the task at hand. This is what tiqqun means by Young Girl. Young Girl is a MASK and Young Girl may be a girl, a toddler, a kindergartener,a woman young or old and all of the same for the male. So you see we are really seeing all different kinds of inauthentic persons. Can you see them? Obviously you can or you wouldn't win at poker so big. So you re-enter the world of people and you can still see because now that you can see, you can't UNSEE. And you can't communicate this to anyone else even though you repeat your words over and over and over because THEY CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU SEE.
NOw you can keep yelling at blind people to see RED if you want. I am telling you they are never going to see it. "An object does not exist until and unless it is observed." - William Burroughs And this was a man who could see. Who could be a Junky and know what it was to be a Junky without lying to himself that that's what he was. And aftrwards he was not fooled by JUNK in all its spins.
You see JUNK in front of you all the time. You call it out. You rave about it. You demand that others see it. It is not a secret. The secret is right in front of everyone. The secret is that there is not secret.
Now please tell me if you can, how your present Discourse is ever going to penetrate that? All I know about you is that you can hear/see what I write when I am writing directly to you and sometimes to someone else. But even when I am writing to someone else, I am still only writing for you as you well know. I know that you know, and you know that I know, and I know that you know that I know and you know that I know that you know. (That's an R.D. Laing Knot.)
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
April 19, 2013 5:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's Krishnamurti saying that, a man who threw away power and riches and adulation to simply go and speak and say what he was thinking and feeling. If you read him, and the questions asked him "by those that are there to hear him because they want to understand him and less because they want to cross swords with him, and still they don't get it. With all the good intentions in the world on both sides it is not a slam dunk at all.
Krishnamurti never wrote even one book. All the books by him were transcribed from talks he gave by those who loved him. Now that fits my meaning of LOVE. And preserve him they did. He was not out to save the world but to talk to those who came to hear him. He made no money and lived on donations. Not unlike Jesus who was institutionalized. So you must separate Jesus the man from Jesus the institution.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 19, 2013 7:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See, this is what I mean when I say too many people breeds indifference. Just another human went pop.
Also, you're not wrong.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 6:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
My friend and Durham colleague Louise Amoore’s forthcoming book, The Politics of Possibility: Risk and Security Beyond Probability, now has a page up at Duke University Press site. It looks great:
Posted from Progressive Geographies: http://progressivegeographies.com/2013/04/19/louise-amoore-the-politics-of-possibility/#comment-16914
Since September 11, 2001, the imagination of “low probability, high consequence” events has become a distinctive feature of contemporary politics. Uncertain futures—devastation by terrorist attack, cyber crime, floods, financial market collapse—must be discerned and responded to as possibilities, however probabilistically unlikely they may be. In The Politics of Possibility, Louise Amoore examines this development, tracing its genealogy through the diverse worlds of risk management consulting, computer science, commercial logistics, and data visualization. She focuses on the increasingly symbiotic relationship between commercial opportunities and state security threats, a relation that turns the trusted, iris-scanned traveler into “a person of national security interest,” and the designer of risk algorithms for casino and insurance fraud into a homeland security resource. Juxtaposing new readings of Agamben, Foucault, Derrida, Massumi, and Connolly with interpretations of post–9/11 novels and artworks, Amoore analyzes the “politics of possibility” and its far-reaching implications for society, associative life, and political accountability.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 11:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
ok, so no idiosyncratic definitions.
curious then,
1. what's wrong with obsolescence? what's wrong with having to reinvent yourself?
2. similarly, what's wrong with "endlessness"?
it seems as though you value a certain kind of finality. (not a criticism, just an observation.) why value "endingness"?
it seems to me that "dominance" is essentially about settling a certain question with finality, so that a certain "status quo" perpetuates indefinitely--or a certain "status" can perpetuate indefinitely. ironic result if "dominance" is what you're arguing against.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 1:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Seymour, thanks for the link re: Amoore's "Politics of Possibility." I agree with her thoughts (juxtaposing with many of those you name drop--meaning I would most likely agree with many of their thoughts as well). Just to note, "thoughts" - what Philosophy really is -- the difference I was pointing out before. Hard Science, many will argue, is still theory as well in that they don't have all the answers, and can't replicate everything, and might be unaware of all of the sequencing involved to begin to replicate it! Philosophical "thoughts" on the other hand, are individual realizations - not necessarily realized by everyone and cannot be tested, replicated in a Lab to become a peer-reviewed "fact." Philosophy becomes more of a Truism (partly true), than a fact, but again only partly true to a few - those with the same logistics, methodology, realizations. Perhaps not much different than a demagogue, in many ways - only being capable of seeing their own ideology/logistics.
Back to Amoore's suggestions/thoughts: many can only see Conspiracy Theory in those discourses; whereas, I see not only possibility in them - I see them as realities...not much different than the logic of a philosopher - why I enjoy philosophy, as well. Why do I see realities? Because some realities can't be proven - they just are. The anthropogenic causes I'm referencing, political in nature, are due to what I see as the difference between intelligence (IQ-ability to comprehend) and intellectualism (philosophy/abstract); those leaders that 'create' problems, then control us by creating a 'fix' are using intellect, not intelligence in their creations. ..We can't scientifically prove that, so it becomes a necessary philosophy: Intellectualism as a philosophical doctrine that knowledge is derived from pure reason/logic...more relative to pursuits and powers. ..And, dominance seems to be very much a part of Intellectualism...I don't put mated/devotional "love" in the same category as intellectualism - one is contrived; the other we have no control over as a neurological reaction resulting from combined genetics and environmental stimulus. I'm not talking about lust, but rather an attachment that we cannot explain. If we can explain that type of attraction -- then it's lust, or is contrived out of Pleasure Principle and 'personal benefit,' as I see it. Gotta go; time to get busy today. Sorry to be so long winded and possibly tangential. I hate that when that happens! lol
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 4:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Gotta go; time to get busy today. Sorry to be so long winded and possibly tangential. I hate that when that happens! lolThe reason this happens to you is that you are completely in the old Discourse of classical Hegelian oppositional. The only "hard" sciences are math and physics. All other human sciences - psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, etc are simply "theoretical fictions." Because they use logic, statistics, prediction and control of variables, cause and effect they have this cloak of "invisibility" over them that acts as a mask asserting what is really emptiness.Theories are fictions that are part of the Discourse they are expressed in. And theories that are constructed to explain disaster occurring in the world and how to correct it are often inverted to give support to that which they were intended to undermine(Virilio's Speed and Politics now being taught in the war colleges and Delauze's A Thousand Plateaus being absorbed by an Israeli general. The post modern thinker no longer deals in theories. The philosophy you are describing in your comment is the "old Discourse" philosophy based on reasoning and logic, prediction, cause and effect and search for conceptual meaning. If you read Amoore there is the mention of "genealogy" in that paragraph which acts as a signifier that Foucault's thought is being used, that of genealogy. That makes it in the post modern Discourse.
And that is why you can never seem to get to the point of anything because the Dominating Discourse is structured that way inherently. The fundamentals of this Discourse at rock bottom holds opposition. This Foucault goes into in great and powerful detail in his The Order of Things. When you finish reading it your head will feel scraped clean. Your mind needs a house cleaning.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 4:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Name "dropping" has a connotation of dropping a name as a signifier meaning you are using that name as a footnote of authority to what you are saying to bolster your argument. It does not refer to original thinking on something that uses the "name" as the kernel of thought that precipitated the original thinking. When I called your link person a name dropper I meant it as dropping names that acted as "masks" obscuring the emptiness behind the sentences. There was no original thought in that link. If you read Zizek's book on reading Hegel through Lacan and Lacan through Hegel, Less Than Nothing, all 1000 plus pages of it he will spin your thinking and you won't have the same Discourse trouble anymore. What a post modern thinker does in an article or book is to take you through the thinking process, teaching you an alternative way of thinking, so you finish by being enlightened, a feeling of being intellectually high! It is not the "dull, boring, gray prose" of reasonable Discourse in Foucault's words. Your prose is "dull, gray, reasonable" and outdated. It is not your content I oppose but the format it is in. Your software sucks.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 4:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Don't know why this got in blockquotes. Not meant to be. They are my thoughts.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 4:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What's wrong with reinventing yourself. Slow down and listen to the language, the sentence you said it in. Reinventing yourself is to regard yourself as an object that needs refurbishing. There is a well known French proverb, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Reinventing yourself means that you have become obsolescent and by reinventing yourself you will be "fixed" made sort of almost new again until you must reinvent yourself yet again to avoid being obsolescent. This is quite different from what Nietzsche says, "the will to be" driving you, as you are the motivating force and you are driving to become, you are not reacting to what the world has thrown at you to put you on the trash heap of obsolescence. One is a motive force inside you, the other is a reaction to outside stimuli to maintain your status quo, or to survive in a world where you are obsolescent now. Sort of like treading water and continuing to tread water until you can't anymore.
Endlessness assumes continuity, progression, historical time in the continuum. The world is not longer, if it ever was, a continuum. The world is run by EVENTS. Events come out of the blue, cannot be predicted, although Amoore is thinking on how to predict their statistical occurrence in my link above. Events are unprecedented. Take the Boston Marathon bombing. Right in the middle of the debate about gun control, rather making gun control and terrorism an obsolete discussion eh. In the wake of this I doubt that gun control will pass now. Was the bombing done to ensure that? I dont think so at all. BUT THE TWO INTERSECT. Events are CUTS, not progressions in linear time. Ayn Rand knew this in her fiction as she began reading Nietzsche when she was 16 through middle age and loved and hated him, but he was her only mentor. All her fiction is permeated with Nietzsche. As Baudrillard would say, he runs in her blood. And as Nietzsche said, "Words written in blood are not to be read, but learnt by heart." And Rand took him very seriously as she took everything very seriously. So endlessness is simply a concept that needs Nietzsche's hammer taken to smash it which I have done a little bit for you.
it seems to me that "dominance" is essentially about settling a certain question with finality, so that a certain "status quo" perpetuates indefinitely--or a certain "status" can perpetuate indefinitely. ironic result if "dominance" is what you're arguing against.
Yes dominance is about settling something with finality with interpretations pitted against each other, each vying for dominance. There can never - NEVER - be finality as the last interpretation is still subject to an additional interpretation. Or until, as Kuhn says, in the Logic of Scientific Revolutions, the proponents change, give up, or die off. An excellent example I found the other day was on "the purity of music" which you can read here on a wonderful blog post: http://focusfree.blogspot.com/2013/04/reading-flux-and-dispute-of-music-tonal.html?zx=ac993224b0fb5e5 He is writing about the FOUCAULDIAN CUT in the tonal scale of music. The piece de resistance came because the final words were not interpretive, but because he words resolved the RESISTANCE as in the psychoanalytical interpretation that resolves the resistance. So I guess I am saying here that there are two kinds of resistance:
1. the reasonable interpretation or speculation that attempts to convince, be the final solution to use a bad choice of words.
2. the emotional interpretation that resolves the resistance to keep rationalizing and calling that interpretation. This is what chloe does ad infinitum.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 4:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And what is wrong with obsolescence is that you are being bred and breeding to die without having lived. That you are performing needed functions for the state, the system, as producer and consumer, that you are an object until you are so obsolete that you are confined to die.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 5:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Seymour - No. Hard Sciences differentiate from Soft Sciences (e.g.,Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy/Methodology, etc.). You might desire Hard Science to be obsolete, but it is not. And, no, Math and Physics are not the only Hard Sciences -- are you kidding -- there are so many worldly Mathematical theories/hypotheses that negate those as "Science." They are courses of logic/reasoning, and with Physics - cause and effect. And... much of my commentary is also based on Geneaology, ancestry/lineage definition. There isn't anything "old" or obsolete about genetic replication and neurology. There is only the suppositional theory with the Philosophers that you praise. ..Not documented and peer-reviewed replication as with the Hard Sciences as "fact."
And, when I suggested tangential, I was not implicating fallacy as you did; I was implicating differentiation from your fallacies.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 6:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So inarticulate and illiterate it hurts.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 20, 2013 7:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, at least you attempt to have a sense of humor in the way of insular minds. ./s
I don't generally insult people, but turn about is fair play.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 21, 2013 12:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You should do it more often. You might get better at it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 21, 2013 12:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You should do it more often. You might get better at it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 21, 2013 1:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The more I read Nietzsche, the more I just wanna fucking read Nietzsche.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 21, 2013 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know exactly what you mean. He is a master of rhetoric. "Words written in blood are not to be read but learnt by heart."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 22, 2013 7:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i still don't see how "obsolescence" or "endlessness" are bad/problematic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 22, 2013 12:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
nb. I say "you" a lot and whilst I am speaking to you, I'm speaking to everyone the comments apply to...everyone. you = everyone.
Okay I understand more about what you (and Foucault) have to say. I appreciate the effort undertaken and anyone who says "Whoa, too much information" should really be in the INTELLIGENCE industry (for comedic value).
But it's not that I don't GET Foucault so much as Foucault (and you) don't GET power. You need to stop valuing lies or you'll never be able to realise even the most simple truths. I wrote the logic out for you and I can post it upon request and it is irrefutable; but you are going to have to show me that you're sane enough to value truth or there is no point in trying to get your long suffering mind around what really is very simple. I know what you'll do, when you cannot refute it. I'm sick of the sleaze of Toddlers who cannot refute logic so they just skip it.
As if that were a sane option.
In a post above I proved that Zizek was batshit insane and a psychotic liar. You all just ignored it.
"...this is what I don't like about American society – I don't like this openness, like when you meet a guy for the first time, and he's starting to tell you about his sex life. I hate this, I hate this!"I have to laugh at this, because Žižek brings up his sex life within moments of our first meeting.
No more value for anyone who values lies. You imbeciles. No philosopher in history (including Foucault) has ever written anything of value because they valued lies and considerate 'truths'. Not too controversial, mind!
Nothing that is not controversial is even worth discussing. You need to pull your head in and slap yourself because I'm tired of this nonsense which creates noise which enables you to lie to yourself that progress is being made when there will be no progress until men stop enabling women who lie to them. You need to start railing against this vermin species' love of lies and stop quoting idiotic philosophers who babble about utterly unimportant abstracts when the truth is staring everyone smack in the face. Women are wearing makeup. The entire ball of yarn can be pulled apart from that single truth. You and Chloe are lying about the motives of girls who wear makeup. Stop lying. It's disgusting.
If Foucault wrote about Polite Society, you should show me that instead of validating my aversion to invest my time in reading what those who value lies have to say about anything. Schoolchildren know more about the dark truths of power than Foucault. I can tell you many things about power but until you value truth, you will be too stupid to converse with.
Until you value truth, you will not be able to recognise what truth looks like. Truth is what Toddlers cannot refute so they just block it out and move on to reading things that validate their utter cluelessness. Unless someone is writing about the psychotic horror of women who lie to men and children, religions who lie to everyone, politicians who lie to the electorate and a Polite Society of filthy vermin who are entirely preoccupied with the molestation of children (and each other); then nothing they say will have value. You need to start cleaning your mind of the corruption that values lies. Your philosophers knew nothing worth knowing because they were either emotionally insane or snivelling cowards.
They did not value truth. Show me where they speak about things that matter. You cannot because they did not. Show me where they make logical arguments. You cannot because they have never been able to. They didn't value truth. How can you expect to learn anything that way?
I could not have survived 14 years (really only nine) of total brainwashing by arguably the most notorious religious sex cult of the 20th century if I didn't GET power in ways Foucault cannot imagine. Foucault had to make a living which means he was compromised. He wanted to be respected and listened to which means he was compromised.
A comment above made me nearly throw my laptop into the wall because you sycophants and your imagined entitlement to be considered... Imbeciles. Power is just going to rape you senseless. Too late?
Truth is never considerate. That is why it has value. If you cannot understand logic this simple, you need to stop valuing lies and start valuing truth. But in the meantime, you need to shut the fuck up with your assertions that truth should consider your feigned ignorance or brain dead limitations. It's just indecent to drivel such insanity.
You live in Polite Societies and you have never valued truth. You value lies so you do not have any value. At all.
But you are not worthless! You need to lie, therefore you are a liability. Until you no longer need to lie, you will never be worthless. You'll be worth a lot less.
The Dominating Discourse is one of lies, love & corrupted values.
Truth is the CUT.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 4:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Seemed like it's already a very long story up here. As for my opinion, I think it's more about the blend of self-image and presentability that matters to women that's why they wear make-up. However, most of the time, I encounter women saying that makeups are part of their overall 'outfit.' Any opinions on this?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 9:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Exactly. You said it perfectly. Make-up used to lie in the Order of Seduction. Women played with it and used it to enhance a certain feeling they had about themselves. Now it has entered the Order of Production. Another bit of reality stolen from us as Baudrillard would say in his The Perfect Crime. For another take on this my review of The Impossible the movie "about" the tsunami in Southeast Asia. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/04/review-impossible-as-disaster-porno.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 1:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Very interesting link. It makes sense. We are so far removed from anything real, and yet people keep seeking it out blindly, subconsciously, scanning pictures of rundown steel mills, fascinated, can't understand why they are so interesting but we keep looking. Going to bad movies and crying HARD because the movies now make the emotional scenes amplified- Hollywood is MERCENARY when it comes to this. It's pure porno: maximum, extended titillation. And the feeling afterwards that you've just been fucked with. Social interactions are so filled with ironic distance and sarcasm that people need to go to these movies to see what it's like to live in a world without irony- to see what real intimacy is like (even though it's simulated). A real disaster destroys ironic distance in an instant. We LONG for that disaster now, it's the only time we can be real w/ each other.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 1:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Lovely comment. I reposted it after the blog post on The Impossible as a comment there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 1:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's the blog post on The Impossible the above refers to.: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/04/review-impossible-as-disaster-porno.html?zx=3b2c0b18f6046edd
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 1:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Werner Herzog reading Go the Fuck to Sleep. You will love it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4sHk75RqEmE#
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 3:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks, I really like the link. What I said kind of pulls from Christopher Lasch (sp?) a bit. David Foster Wallace I think touched on similar subjects.
Related to your blog, I've been thinking recently about what it is about disasters and violence lately that has the hair on the back of my neck standing up. The more and more I think about it and pay attention to how people and the media react to these events, the sicker I become. Why?
Well if you notice the event itself, a person who is directly affected (they got injured or their loved one got injured) acts as expected (shock, pain, grief, etc). But then there are the people who are connected to the event in some way (they were there, or they knew someone there, or they are part of the media..whatever) and what they are feeling, the thing that made me sick to my stomach when I realized what it is: they were feeling excitement. If you look at the eyes of any journalist in the midst of a disaster like this you can see the joy. I saw it on their faces during the Sandy Hook disaster as well- even though they put on forced grim faces, their eyes couldn't contain the sheer excitement. This was the identity-defining moment they've always been looking for, the fight off the coast of Normandy or the Berlin Wall that they can use as a mirror to define their own identity. Like some "jeune-fille" in Boston who was maybe blocks away from the carnage, and yet feels like maybe she felt connected to something bigger for once (she feels excitement but she knows it's not appropriate to show it)- but she can't wait to go home and tweet about it, thinking that this is her chance to shine above all her friends who weren't lucky enough to have such a defining moment. Of course no one will admit it, but they don't have to- you can see it behind the eyes and read it between the lines. And trust me they will milk it for all it's worth #terrorismsux
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 3:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. This is true. Jean Baudrillard writes about this. The same excitement at misfortune. The way cars slow down in fascination at car accidents. It is the Event of Misfortune that cuts into the daily grind of survival. It is seductive. It forces one to leave the Order of Production: (survival, prediction, porno, etc) into the Order of Symbolic Seduction: (living, challenge, risk, ecstasy, etc). This difference is noted in DeLillo's Cosmopolis and is absent in Cronenberg's film Cosmopolis. Once one identifies this and learns to think in it, the world becomes more understandable.
I think the bombings were inspired by video games. When the cops chase you and corner you, you either wait in your car, exit and try to run away on foot, but normal criminals do not get out of the car, advance on the police and start shooting. But they do in video games, in Virtual Reality from which there is no escape when Simulated Reality such as you were describing, becomes total, and we are in Virtual Reality.
This bombing is taking place in Simulated Reality and it has bitten off a good chunk of Reality. To destroy simulated reality, there has to be an excess of reality and a sacrifice to complete the model for terrorism. These two brothers were excessive. They were following a Game. And the other events that have followed are in the Game also. Scary stuff although fascinating eh. It got huge hits so it seems everyone was also.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 6:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Side question:
Why games specifically, rather than movies or television where the protagonist takes similar actions, running towards the enemy guns blazing and so forth?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 6:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Because the games take you deep into Virtual Reality until the distinction gets blurry. There are a number of youtube videos of kids "playing" the game in real time. then there's another of a heist copying the game in real time only they actually pulled a criminal "play". The bombings are following a deeper level of gaming IMO where when you take action the game changes to modify itself just for you and present another series of circumstances. It's not often you see on TV of someone just getting out of the car and opening up on all the police there. Certain suicide, and it would have the consequence of ending the show, wouldn't it, if the criminal were dead. One person isn't going to be able to shoot it out alone with a bunch of back ups. He will be dead meat.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 8:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
For jonny:
From Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian chapt 17:
The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.Suppose two men at cards with nothing to wager save their lives. Who has not heard such a tale? A turn of the card. The whole universe for such a player has labored clanking to this moment which will tell if he is to die at that man's hand or that man at his. What more certain validation of a man's worth could there be? This enhancement of the game to its ultimate state admits no argument concerning the notion of fate. The selection of one man over another is a preference absolute and irrevocable and it is a dull man indeed who could reckon so profound a decision without agency or significance either one. In such games as have for their stake the annihilation of the defeated the decisions are quite clear. This man holding this particular arrangement of cards in his hand is thereby removed from existence. This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one's will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god. Brown studied the judge.
You're crazy Holden. Crazy at last.
The judge smiled.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 23, 2013 9:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's hardly weird even -- journalists get excited to have real news. I've noticed the same thing for years when weathermen have a "blank-meggedon" type storm. For a journalist of any stripe, it's fun -- you're important as a source of information. You get to look important, you get to ask Famous People Important Questions, you get to play with the graphics generation and put up google earth of the Boston area, all that kind of stuff. What you saw was the brief moment when they mattered. Most of the time, news, especially TV news, is filler. None of it is of real importance. The people shot in the city -- you could re-run the story tommarow and change the name, it doesn't matter, because there is no change in the status quo. Congress is largely irrelevent as well. Nothing is going to change because Congress passes a law -- because real changes are blocked by lobbies. Maybe the sports is real, but it's not either. The hockey team can lose almost half of the games and still make the playoffs.
A mass attack of any sort is the only news that matters. It does change things. This isn't a Congressional non-debate about a foregone conclusion (if anybody seriously thought that Sandy Hook might mean a gun law would pass, you haven't lived in the US very long). This was something real -- and something relevent to the people. Was it al qaida, was this a random dude popping off, was it a jihad, or revenge, or anger at Boston? The answers are actually important here. They'll change how you go to the ballpark next week, they'll change how you vote, they'll change how you'll see the muslim family down the road. They might affect the future ways we'll debate the next war. That's why journalists get excited.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 12:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The answers are actually important here. They'll change how you go to the ballpark next week, they'll change how you vote, they'll change how you'll see the muslim family down the road. They might affect the future ways we'll debate the next war. That's why journalists get excited.
The changes happen in response to the media-induced excitement. Terrorists know this. Which is why they do it in the first place, and why it will continue.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 1:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Eeeeh. To start with no studies have been able to find any real correlation between videogames and violence thus far, despite the rather intense attention it has received as of late (lot of blame being tossed around following the recent school shootings in the states). There is equal evidence both for and against a connection, which is a good way to tell that we have no idea if there is one or not.
Also, I think you're looking at the TV bit the wrong way. You see people hop out of cars and attack their enemies all the time in movies, it just happens to be in those cases that the person jumping from the car is the hero of the story and what do you know, not a scratch on them when the smoke clears. Which is kind of an important point, because I firmly doubt that these guys felt what they were doing was wrong. No mustache twirling here, just a simple belief that what they were doing was right and that plot armor exists in real life.
If you tried that in GTA with more than 3 stars on your wanted level, you're pretty much dead. Yeah you respawn, but you lose cash, all the ammo you wasted, and mission progress; arguably more negative consequences for risky behavior in a videogame than a movie.
Besides, plenty of people have decided for whatever reason to try to imitate television killers, Twitchell and Dexter for instance.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 10:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Make-up for many women I do not believe to be essential. For some it can, if applied correctly, greatly enhance their looks. It can also help with skin tone and damage.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 10:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Try Grand Theft Auto?
As far as studies are concerned since I was trained in research and have taught statistics and research design, I know how elusive anything conclusive is in the human sciences. r is not used so much as a statistical model anymore so rarely is a study designed to yield the r coefficient of correlation.
This is the problem with education today. You have all the sound bites in your mouth without the depth of understanding required to discuss stats intelligently. You probably don't know how to lie with stats either. Try reading that old book by Darryl Huff on How to Lie with Statistics. It's short, readable and full of well reasoned sound bites. Stat is just numbers within a Dominating Discourse to sound fancy to untrained ears.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 10:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. The media induced excitement is the payoff. In this case there have been a number of instances of violence following Boston. Are they related or not. They do not appear to be as there is no connection among them by the perpetrators. But what if there is of a different order?
An object does not exist until and unless it is observed, - William Burroughs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 11:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Indeed. Indeed. The Boston bombing should be a drop in the ocean taken in context. But thanks to the media, it is not merely a drop in the ocean- it is the ocean.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 12:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's honestly kind of a disappointing response. I expected you to actually try to argue the points I presented, such as the difference in how stories are played out between television and video games and how it applies to this situation.
In the last post I responded to you didn't really preset any evidence, or arguments, just some statements about how you feel the bombers were experiencing a 'deeper level of gaming' (I really don't know what that means in this context, are you implying that the bombers had become entrenched in the delusion of an ongoing game like Tom Hanks in Mazes and Monsters? If you are, then I would request you reserve judgement on the effects of videogames pending an actual evaluation of the remaining suspect.) You also talk about youtube videos of playthroughs of heists that were then completed in real life (is this evidence of excessive immersion, or enterprising criminals learning a building layout through a 3D interface?)
I did my best to respond to the only argument I really saw, that is that the actions the bombers took was similar to the kind of behavior a game character would exhibit. I don't mean to take a 'tit for tat' approach to this, but your post seemed awfully sound-bitey to me and I simply did my best to respond to the relevant statement. Also, I never suggested you try GTA. I don't know where you got that impression.
If you would like to present statistics for the effects of videogames on violence, and then presumably explain how the analysis in those studies is superior to any studies I can produce that claim the contrary, I would be happy to read them.
I would suggest you read "A Briefer History of Time" by Steven Hawking. It has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but at least its a decent read. Don't take too much of the science to heart though, a lot of it is outdated now.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 12:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"That's honestly kind of a disappointing response."
Disappointing? It's quite in line with her other responses. If something doesn't conform to her position, it is "Dominating Discourse". It is an unsurprising tactic, so it shouldn't be disappointing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 1:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I just realised I misspelled Stephen. Ug.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 2:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When you Discourse in terms of prediction and control, cause and effect you are in the Dominating Discourse of the human sciences as it is taught at university. Pro and con, arguments rebutting this and that are all part of it. Endless interpretation and then re-interpretation. since you make fun of what I have said, that is an indication that you have not studied much in the area of post modern thinking. I am just not going to go back to thinking that way to discourse with you on a comment board. All I could do would be to argue with you on your turf and I exited that a few years back. Dominating Discourse is called dominating because it seeks to dominate, to present an opinion, a fact or facts that will silence the other. Post modern thinking has abandoned that Discourse for a different way of thinking.
I freely mentioned GTA and of course you did not suggest it. So why did you think I thought you had suggested it? That is a misreading - mis-thinking - of some sort I don't understand.
If you had been following post modern thinking you would understand the "interfacing of technology" in all our minds, depending how immersed we are in it. We use phones - to quote Mumford of Mumford and Sons - and I don't understand how my phone works, but I use it anyway. One no longer has to think of delusion in terms of playing out video games, as delusion implies a pejorative term and a counter term is assumed even when not stated such as non-delusional; normal, etc so your Discourse is automatically in the classical Hegelian Dominating Discourse of opposites. Remember: thesis - antithesis - synthesis - new thesis which are processes of thinking within a linear time, a progressive time, a time of origins and horizons of utopia. The world is Event driven, discontinuous, non-linear that is, and chance is in charge with consequences that spiral out. These are two different modes of thinking. One is authoritarian, the other is not. I have no problem understanding you, so why can you not understand me? Because you haven't delved into this and I am not going to go backwards to accommodate you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 2:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I considered responding to your comment in depth, but I think it would be simpler to just post this in order to speed up the exchange:
"Dominating Discourse is called dominating because it seeks to dominate, to present an opinion, a fact or facts that will silence the other. Post modern thinking has abandoned that Discourse for a different way of thinking. "
Now, to my mind, this is precisely what you did in your previous post. Rather than responding to my points you first established yourself as an expert ["As far as studies are concerned since I was trained in research and have taught statistics and research design..."] in order to effectively silence my statement regarding the relative success of research on the effects of videogames on violence. You then attempted to trivialize the other points I made ["This is the problem with education today. You have all the sound bites in your mouth without the depth of understanding required to discuss stats intelligently."] following which you attempted to redirect the conversation a second time ["Try reading that old book by Darryl Huff on How to Lie with Statistics."]
In your following post (the one being responded to) you attempted to justify your tangential thinking by describing it as spiraling post modern thinking. Is this not an even more insidious form of the same dominating discourse that you derided? Rather than simply try to 'win' the argument as one might in a standard linear conversation, you seek to control the flow of the conversation. Every time you change the direction or topic everyone else involved is forced to either bend to your whim and play catch-up, or they are forced to simply produce a non sequitur response in an attempt to steer the conversation them self.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 3:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't win in a non-linear discourse but neither can you or anyone else. That is the problem. Yes, I did try to respond to you non-linearly and that was of course a mistake. I have spent a lifetime of education, time and money training myself to do that and so have you. All we will do is play ping-pong with each other.
I am really saying is that I am no longer thinking this way and I do slip. Perhaps Heidegger says it better:
For Heidegger, technology is exactly the distancing device that prevents us from achieving some full and direct encounter with the real — what he called Being itself. The “essence” of technology, Heidegger said, isn’t machines or systems of production, but a point of view that looks at reality only in terms of its instrumental use value:
I am a novice still struggling with this. If you read the "real" ones writing within post modern thought, then you would know what I mean. Zizek is one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 4:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Try then to see the situation from my perspective. All I asked for was an explanation of why you think videogames are wholly/partially to blame for the behavior of the two men who set off bombs in bostion. You responded with - and lets be honest here - some pretty weak points.
When I attempted to challenge you viewpoint, which I thought to be either poorly informed or not well thought out, in an effort to force you to either expand on or clarify your position you made the decision to make a 'non-linear response'. The non linear response took the form of informing me of your internet-credentials and attempting to lecture me on the nature of the discussion which from that point on we were no longer having. How am I supposed to interpret that as anything other than a slightly clumsy dodge?
When I tried to call you out on what I perceived to be avoiding the topic of discussion, you attempted to beat me down with an excessive discourse on the nature of non linear discussion despite its apparent irrelevance to the original topic. At this point I stopped viewing your responses as dodges, but rather attempts to steer the conversation towards something you would rather discuss (less irritating, but more rude than a dodge).
Now: to your earlier question. "I have no problem understanding you, so why can you not understand me?"
You understand me because every time I respond to one of your posts, I am automatically in a reactionary position since I am [was.] attempting to have a logical conversation in order to gain information with regards to my original question. I don't understand you because you are apparently dead set on denying me that, and as such you change the topic and rules every time you post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 5:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think the video game connection to violence, at least from what I've read is more about being able to do the skills, in a sense programming your reactions. I play Skyrim (duh), so what I practice doing in those games, or what I role-play doing in those games, I sort of de-sensitize myself to doing. So if I constantly play assasins and shoot people with fire or lightening or a pretend bow and arrow, the theory goes that I have much less compunction about doing an analogous thing to real people in real life. The theory as I understand it is not "I play a game so therefore I will be more violent" so much as "I get mentally used to the idea of causing pain in other people, and get used to seeing people as targets, so given the proper context, I might see (for example) a classroom full of kids as a hallway or room full of targets like in a game". That's where the whole thing gets dicey for the "video games cause school shootings" thing. That's not the hypothesis, so no correlation could be found.
I think personally, that the hypothesis makes some sense as it really gets mentioned, especially as the games become ever more realistic. When you "kill" a character in a game, they look real, they cry in pain, they try to run away -- all things that an actual person would do. Which means that there's very little separating the simulation from the reality, and thus if a person is mentally treating a real-life environment like a simulated one, that it's very hard for the "real world" to re-assert itself in the mind of the shooter. If the simulation were radically different, if the targets didn't scream in pain like real people, if the blood wasn't realistic, something like that, then a person acting out a fantasy would stop at the point where the real thing was not like the simulation. If the simulation did not include blood, then stepping in a pool of victim's blood should tell the shooter's brain that it's not a game and you just shot someone for real.
Think of it more as removing the "brakes" against some behavior. You still aren't necessarily causing it, but removing the STOP that is normally there.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 7:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Check out some youtube Grand Theft Auto real time. Some are kids playing, some are teens playing and there are some real time crimes using the GTA template. Scary. Don't know how many of the different games of GTA you are familiar with, but there is one mission very like Boston.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 8:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just your language is aggressive.
When I attempted to challenge you viewpoint, which I thought to be either poorly informed or not well thought out, in an effort to force you to either expand on or clarify your position you made the decision to make a 'non-linear response'.When I tried to call you out on what I perceived to be avoiding the topic of discussion, you attempted to beat me down with an excessive discourse on the nature of non linear discussion despite its apparent irrelevance to the original topic. At this point I stopped viewing your responses as dodges, but rather attempts to steer the conversation towards something you would rather discuss (less irritating, but more rude than a dodge).
You understand me because every time I respond to one of your posts, I am automatically in a reactionary position since I am [was.] attempting to have a logical conversation in order to gain information with regards to my original question. I don't understand you because you are apparently dead set on denying me that, and as such you change the topic and rules every time you post.
Do you read how aggressive your language is. This is not an invitation to discuss, this is an invitation to war: attempt to challenge....; to force you.... You are using battle, war metaphors and this implies that you are out to win something, etc.
tried to call you out; more rude than a dodge. Yes I am avoiding the conversation as you frame it. And after trying to call me out you attack me by telling me I am rude. And yes I do want to discuss something else and you are correct in perceiving that. I want to discuss the language you use in communicating with me. I am not responding to the content of your statements. I am responding to the intent of your statements.
automatically in a reactive position. Yes you are. You are not responding but reacting. That's a blessing you get that. But that's what this discourse forces those who use it and are in it to do. Each forces the other to react, not respond. This is how Bush II defeated Gore in the debates. Only Gore was not up to handling him as I am to you. To be fair, the stakes were much higher.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 25, 2013 5:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A real disaster destroys ironic distance in an instant. We LONG for that disaster now, it's the only time we can be real w/ each other.
Disaster is universally longed-for not because it gives people a chance to be real but to break up the interminable boredom of surreal deceit and unoriginality.
No one has anything genuinely interesting to say; it's all stolen lines, repeated jokes, cliched expressions - feelings and actions are the favoured topics of conversation ("I'm having breakfast, I need a pic for Instagram!") - this is all anyone talks about. In this hyper-sensitive bullied world (victims of emotional abuse terrorised and on edge), talking about food you're eating may be insane but it's popular because it's safe.
"How are you?"
"How was your weekend?"
Insane, but safe. All the answers are corrupted lies of misrepresentation and distortion. Everyone is obsessed with impressing rather than being impressive; hey, if you think about it, it's a little cosmetic? These cretin humans are too retarded to make their deceit credible so I'm forced to cringe no matter how POSITIVE my THINKING is. Girls have the obvious solution; I must hear it a dozen times a week.
"Don't think too much."
Okay then. That sounds like the Answer to handling the non-stop universal discourse of imbecilic lies. I should just stop thinking?
Should I start feeling very strongly instead?
______________
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 25, 2013 6:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Disasters are longed for because people want to feel relevant more than anything else; they long for the validation buzz. Watch the faces of the little conformist vermin being interviewed for [being a bystander]; it doesn't matter that they were just standing there stupidly, they're juiced! All that attention; they're overdosing on a cascading emotional high (feeling relevant).
When real disaster strikes, the truth of this terrified, psychotic, bullied species is revealed. In a legitimate disaster (not a media-hyped Spectacle), survival plays a lot like this:
The Atlantic: A Sea Story - On a stormy night on the Baltic Sea, more than 850 people lost their lives when a luxurious ferry sank below the waves.
That's the nature of our reduced species. That's what happens during a disaster, for real. I grew up in that world. Fear driving everything. Everyone living in shame at what they'd done in the murky business of survival; but for most, they just had no reason to suffer through endless days of pain and mental anguish without hope of relief. They'd all been made to be terrified of dying; in part, because their lives were so miserable and abject. But their irrational terror kept them alive to suffer. Their trauma was not coincidental.
The Dominating Discourse is one of casually-accepted deceit with lies going unchallenged, almost no one attributing value to what is real and true and everyone uniting to fail to hold those who corrupted the discourse (negating the sole purpose of discourse) responsible.
Truth will be the CUT or there will be no point in cutting.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 25, 2013 3:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You on the other hand have passive-aggression down to a science.
You don't necessarily even discuss any issue, and when you do, you insist that every word anyone utters must be seen through your favorite authors, and any attempt to discuss something not about your author directly must be quickly redirected back to discussion of Facoult, and about how Facault is right, and how you can't do Facault justice without reading Facault several times. In other words, if it ain't about Facault, you MAKE it about Facault. And if you try to discuss Facault, you insist that only you really get him, and that if we want to have a conversation about Facault, we have to read his stuff (though, I'm sure that even if I read him, if I disagree with you, I got it wrong). It's passive agressive, because while you pretend that you're trying to make us better people, it's all about showing off how much better you are (via psychic connection to Facault) and how only you can truely understand the universe.
I've had the same frustrations at times -- most recently when trying to discuss evolutionary theory (scroll up) -- and rather than explain where I'm wrong, you managed to dismiss the entire issue of evolution with a wave of "dominating discourse". It's science, and the fossil record shows that evolution happened, it's happening now, and those poor misguided souls (AKA evolutionary biologists) who think that evolution can explain some aspects of human and animal behavior must bow to you and your "dominating discourse". That's text-book passive aggressive, as it dismisses the argument by making sure that you're the only one who understands enough to have the argument.
At least the annoyed anonymous is being direct in his arguments. He's not trying to turn everything into Facault with no dealing with other subjects allowed. If Annoyed disagrees, he at least has the courage of his convictions to say so, and say so directly.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 25, 2013 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're probably right. But it seems that when you misspell the major philosopher of the last half of the 20th century, who has influenced all the human sciences, turned them around, THAT AT LEAST YOU COULD SPELL HIS NAME CORRECTLY!
How can I take you seriously if you are not the least bit familiar with his work as it affects evolutionary theory profoundly. As does present day physics. It's like talking medicine before antibiotics.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 25, 2013 5:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's a hypothesis:
Somewhere along the line, someone who was fed up with her ad hominem-y, non sequitur-y, authoritarian (dismissive) style of argumentation said to her "You really need to read Foucault". Said protagonist's intention was that she would read Foucault and realize that Foucault makes a good case criticizing these modes of argumentation--her modes of argumentation.
Were I there, I would have thought it to be a rather misguided effort because Foucault's ideas arose within context of a certain social backdrop. But I would have been wrong in that prediction. The contextuality of Foucault is not the cause of this abomination (or, from where I sit now, hilarity). The real perversion is that, rather than Foucault being the means of reforming her, that introduction to Foucault made things worse: he became just another tool in her arsenal (not his ideas, but rather his words!)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 25, 2013 6:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's exactly what he says. He does not offer a theory. He says, "my work is a toolbox, a method."
"People know what they say (write).
They frequently even know why they say (write) what they say (write).
But what they don't know is what they say (write) does." - Michel Foucault
Here is one blog post on Foucault that should put your mind at rest. I am not going to try to re-invent the wheel here. If you seriously want to know: http://focusfree.blogspot.com/2011/10/foucault-nietzsche-genealogy-method-end.html?zx=b80cd1f2ff1c5971
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 25, 2013 7:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not saying you apply Foucault's ideas. You don't.
You merely invoke his name. That invocation is little more than an appeal to authority. And that is how you attempt to dominate the discourse and thereby prevent actual discourse. Your incantations in the name of Foucault are perverse.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 25, 2013 9:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not trying to argue using Foucault's authority. I am just saying that I am not replying to any of you in the Dialectical Discourse. It is hopeless.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 6:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And yet, you do. It's quite obvious to see the effects of your comments on the discourse above. You have done it throughout.
If you're sincere about wanting to avoid the dominating discourse, try applying Foucauldian principles without referencing his name.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 8:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Foucault determines the fossil record? Not so, evolution precedes the existence of any humans -- no human could change evolution. And evolutionary theory is a result of the study of evolution. So I don't see how Foucault has anything to do with science.
And I'm not opposed to the idea of human brains influencing how people view science and history, however, that's dealt with in the science by the requirement that scientific experiments be replicated.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 10:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As far as evolution of humans is concerned there are more than a few scientists that think the evolution of humanity is running backwards. Wes Jackson the great agriculturalist has written that Stone Age man loved his children more than modern man written in the context of our destroying our aquaducts (our source of water) and destroying the soil that provides our food. In other words poisoning the world that our future descendents will live in. This was the message of the movie The Descendents. Doesn't sound much like progression to me.
As far as Foucault and evolution the importance of CUTS has been established. Evolution proceeds in slow infinitesimal molecular change (Monad) and at moments in time erupts in vast changes. Saber toothed tigers frozen in arctic ice with food in their stomachs undigested rather than starved carcasses from a slow change. ANY theory can be inverted and used against that which it was inteneded to subvert. (Virilio: Speed and Politics)
We see "innocent until proven guilty inverted into guilty until innocence proved" in our "justice" system. And two "suspects" hunted like convicted criminals escaped from prison in Boston before out eyes. Yes they might have killed more people. But to violate the principles of our justice system to catch them, we have ensured that millions will die in the future from our now obvious police state.This was the "real message" to be read in Boston, the site of our original freedom beginning now a harbinger of what is to come under totalitarianism.
If you can't see that, and I don't believe you can, it iss because of the rusty way you think.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 10:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I do it all the time. Here's one: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/?zx=7d051c2f5e825905 I have already written in detail. I am not going to reinvent the wheel here and post it in a comment here where I can't develop it fully.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 4:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I couldn't help feeling the same thing: the way they chased him and the way he was caught...it was a warning to the rest of the public rather than just a routine capture of a fugitive. And people were happy to see them use whatever means necessary to capture him...as long as we're safe blah blah blah. In other words, what this EVENT said was pay close attention America, if you get out of line we will hunt you down. The Osama Bin Laden spectacle told us the same thing.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 4:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dovakiin, so whatever happened to the man and woman you referred to, the couple who were divided with the woman wanting to settle down and the man not wanting to be settled? It was something like that. You said something, I guess a popular opinion, about nobody owning anybody and I said something about it maybe not being ownership but in some regards as close to it as one may see in this lifetime. In the Bible it says "I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine" so I guess God Himself is on my side. that's nice. Anyway, what happened to them? Are they in counseling? Mediation? Rehab? Hiding? Reconciled? or what?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 6:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is why so many of them couple the act with suicide.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 6:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Lovely quote from scriptures. I will remember it. King David?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 6:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now we are seeing how possible it is to set up a totalitarian govt. And how many demand it step by step by step. I argued all during breakfast with a woman who opposed me at every intersection of the argument. She was all for it because the pictures showed he was guilty.
She has children and grandchildren and I do not.
People know what they say.
They frequently even know why they say what they say.
But what they don't know is what they say does. - Michel Foucault
Those who will give up freedom for security will find they neither have security nor freedom. - Ben Franklin
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 11:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Song of Solomon is, as one might expect, attributed to Solomon, David's son. Benjamin Franklin's quotation isn't useless, but taking it as some kind of divine mandate suggests some shortsightedness, more like what you would expect from a child than an adult. It makes intuitive sense to me that someone who is say a libertarian and a fan of Foucault would really go for it, though. I wish I could say that better than I just did. Someone with certain ideals. Probably someone who needs to see him or herself in this highly idealized, childlike way, and the other-parents, probably- as kind of demonic. I hate to say that because i think seing one's parents any old way can be helpful and also because I think seeing them as mere humans is for most of us the work of a lifetime, and hard, but worth it. So I hate, in a way, to take what I just said and make a huge statement with it, particularly as I made it so unattractive as to be worthless probably to anyone and also because I can't really place where i would be within such an idea. If anywhere.
The article I read seemed to think it dubious that Song of Solomon was really attributed to Solomon. I think I used to not like that book very much but now it seems to have this nice kind of sexy/romantic thingy going on. I don't find much of the rest of the Bible sexy. Sweet, maybe, touching. But not sexy. It has a lot of drama in it- kind of like watching those Spanish soap operas. It makes some kind of sense to me that the Bible would need to get down to it somewhere. Interesting, Solomon was a major prophet in the Qu'ran, a book I always misspell, but he did not fall from grace there, as he did in the Bible. The Bible seems to say he was both wise and very good but also very bad at some point. I am confused about this. He is said by people I know anyway to have been something of a magus, like King David. Come to think of it, maybe everyone falls from grace in teh Bible and so perhaps it should not be taken too seriously, just a condition of existing, for the most part.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 26, 2013 11:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You know what else- based on what I know about Franklin, I am not at all sure he took his own words about not sacrificing freedom for security seriously for maybe anyone but himself. I am not a Franklin scholar. But what I have read of him is so misogynistic and exploitative that I am not sure I could ever take him seriously. I am sure he must have been smart enough to see that in some ways freedom and security is a dance and a negotiation that happens every day whether we notice it or not. So i guess i wonder to what he was referring when he came up with those particular words.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 12:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I keep thinking, Lord, I hope I am lying here awake not because of Benjamin Franklin, which would be sort of embarrassing or maybe even humiliating, but more because, say, I am coming off ativan, and that makes me sleepless. Please God, let it be true, I do not want to be crazier than I already am.
But, seriously??! Seriously. I mean, so what, Frankin is saying we sacrifice freedom not for stability? what do we sacrifice freedom for then? Nothing? Is it all about the freedom? That's nuts. Here, it is an all-caps: THAT IS CRAZY TALK. that sounds like some crazy dude jacked up on testosterone, all over..... an idea. An emotion. A notion. "Freedom."
This really rubs me the wrong way. I guess you can get into all kinds of things about freedom and stability not being opposites even though he seems to have polarized them. I know there is a certain school of thought that runs along the lines of facing death 99.9% of the time; I guess, because I like to be female and because I like pragmatism, that it is hard for me to see it very well. I mean, you know, I have a huge fondness for orderly and predictable. That kind of *is* my idea of freedom. I wish I could empathize with what Franklin way saying, but it is so out of any context and sounds, like I said, jacked up on idealism and testosterone, so I don't know.
It just makes me crabby.
and when you think about it, 'a penny saved is a penny got' is a weird expression too. I mean, a penny spent seems just as good. I mean, a penny spent is a penny, SPENT, spent SHOPPING, yay. Am I just in a bad mood?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 7:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's never been a "direction" to evolution. It's simple enough -- the group that survives wins. If we'd survive better by being imbaciles, we'll be stupid apes. If we survive better by having no hair, we have no hair. Now, as to how pollution of the environment relates -- well, really it comes down to our brains not being very good (yet) at delayed gratification. In other words, making sure that I live (so that I may have kids later) is more of an advantage than not manipulating the environment for some long-term good that will only help people 500 years later but might mean non-survival to me. It's the same thing that drives other creatures -- a bear will fish a species to extinction, not because it's mean to those fish, but because a fish to feed itself and its cubs today means a chance to survive until tommarow.
You can't think in terms of evolution going forward or backward, it's not accurate. evolution always goes in the direction of survival. if survival requires narcissism, we'll all be narcissists, if it requires violence, we'll be violent. if it requires tolerance for radiation (for example for people on mars where there's more radiation), that's what will eventually happen.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 9:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice mediation here of yours. I had stopped thinking that way so it was nice to be reminded. What you say is true, but the species that survive by whatever are not equipped to "survive" an Event, a Foucauldian CUT, a catastrophe, as what is required is responding outside the box. So they die. As Nietzsche said, the first person who invented the wheel to make things easier for himself - and/or others - was most likely killed for it. Gallileo was threatened with the stake for his scientific theory that the earth revolved around the sun not the reverse as the church taught to maintain their Dominating Discourse of man as the center of the universe put there by God. And all the transfer of power that that entailed to them, of course.
As Ayn Rand as Gail Wynand says to Roark: (paraphrasing here) Have you ever felt that your life goes on like a typing exercise until something happens that changes it?
This is the best I can answer you in a short response.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 10:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No you are not just in a bad mood. You are just not thinking very well or very clearly so your writing is unclear. To yourself. I have no trouble understanding you but then that was my profession for many many years and now it is interfaced with my mind.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 10:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now you have entered the "swamp of psychological interpretation" so I won't go there. It IS a swamp you know.And underneath lies miles of quicksand.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 10:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Have you read the recent biography on Franklin? Yes it is one of those pithy sayings that resonates with meaning the more you think about it.Not quite an aphorism but very close.
Freedom is something we don't yet have the language for. Freedom is not something you can give someone or really take away. You can deprive the person of ever growing manifestations of expressing it, but it is always there unless you turn the person into a zombie. Most people have no idea what it is. They confuse liberation with freedom. Only a slave can be liberated. Women's liberation is a misnomer and women mistake it for an increase in freedom, but it is only a widening of the area in which a woman's freedom can be expressed. Along with that widening comes a more subtle form of repression for her. Woman like man, is caught in the Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge/capital/normality and one must find their own wiggle room within it, their own way of resistance to it. And then some can find ways for creative destruction. Like Jackson Pollack in painting. Like Malabou in brain plasticity. Like Zizek in demonstrating how the media constricts our thinking, our understanding of meaning.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 10:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You are the one that is caught in a swamp of interpretation. You talk about these heady ideas as if they are something but all they are is taking suffering adn trying to make it into something it is not. And your idealization of artists. that is exactly what artists do--- transform suffering--- the sort of people who become artists are deeply disturbed. Look at Rainer Maria Rilke. In a way, they have no other choice. But you gravitate towards fancy thinkers who veer towards thinking they are better than everyone else, kind of a weird quality, an odd juxtaposition for someone who idealizes artists. But the thinkers you like hae these illusions of power, so maybe that is why you like them, because they make you feel powerful. Generally artists have to go deep into suffering- great artists, anyway.
I am not at all sure that teh object or conscious object of art should be freedom, should be protest, should be overthrowing anything. I am veering off topic here. I guess you have to make room for that sort of thing along with everything else. But I think teh great art might have that effect, although I am not sure at all that it should be its conscious intention.
And you are not a shrink.
And I say all this as someone who sort of makes some art and definitely gets caught up in some very complicated thinking. I don't know why that matters exactly. But it seems like it should. I mean, I get grandiose and I get depressed and the two kind of augment each other. Which is one idea of the kind of person who makes art. Maybe I'd be happier if i were more passionate about it and less dubious about it, as you could be said to be. But given a choice, I'd still so much rather just be normal. Just normal, and simple as I can get it.
I still like my definition of freedom teh best. Just that freedom is feeling like you have some, and that it is good. I guess some people might find it in a sort of constant active pursuit, and some might find it in just being halfway stable, so there you go. You know, Franklin and all those people that people love to love without really ever seriously reading--- like Emerson---always sound so freaking moralistic to me. I don't trust that. those people make me nervous. Although, Emerson did have a brilliant moment when he said a foolish consistency is teh hobgoblin of small minds. So there is that.
And since I am really going off here, revolution, change, throwing off the old, can just as easily and sometimes better be obtained by working slow and steady and boring as much or more than being zingy and radical. I struggle with this because I get tired of people and have not a lot of tolerance and patience and diplomacy and what have you. Also, people kind of consistently horrify me or I don't have much that is terribly polite to say, which sucks for them but really really also sucks for me. And I love expressions like "Revolution begins at the end of a barrel of a gun!" and other fun misanthropic stuff. So I like zingy. zingy works for me. I'm just not at all sure it works for actually creating change in a way that is superior to anything else. My guess would be no.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 11:03 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It is so flipping weird you would even use teh expression 'swamp of interpretation' like it is bad thing. You are nothing but a swamp of interpretation. Swamp of interpretation is your raison d'etre. (Sorry if i screwed up teh French. It's Foucault's fault. His and Lacan's. they've just created this huge hatred of all things Frenchy for me. I get a lot of mileage out of making fun of French people now. In a way, it is pretty good).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 11:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
miaokuancha reblogged seebster “Uncritically framing women’s “symptoms of depression” — which are not objectively distinguishable from rational female despair under a woman-hating patriarchal regime — as an illness, let alone an illness of irrationality, is a decidedly male-centric frame which does not acknowledge patriarchy at all, and therefore tends to normalize and invisiblize patriarchal policies and practices. Characterizing women’s “lack of interest and energy” …as a problem at all…normalizes women’s roles and literally pathologizes women’s inability (or unwillingness?) to perform them, and to do so cheerfully. Then, through applying forced-perspective which is inconsistent with female reality, women are made to view their “situation” from a woman-hating, male-centric perspective, accepting that they are “ill” and perceiving reality incorrectly, rather than acknowledging the real, political context of global female subjugation and abuse, including sexual and reproductive abuse.” — FCM, Abilify (at Radfem-ological Images)
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 12:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I find depression being characterized as an illness empowering because it is like saying "Get off my back, this is just how I am, sorry." And I find the idea that depression comes with some cognitive distortions attractive as well, because I think that people tend to kind of lump cognitive problems into some idea about psychosis, and that is helpful to no one, since everybody has their little cognitive glitches. I'd so much rather it be at least an option for exploring, without the added stigma of labeling it psychotic.
God- that is the most kind, humanistic, Phil Donahue-sounding statement I've managed to make all year, my self esteem is skyrocketing. Ahhhhhhhh. It's like having a good stretch. Mmm. Happy.
Now for the misogyny. LOL. I think women just kind of like getting men o do things for them and telling them what to think. I kind of think screaming about patriarchy and oppression is projection. and i think from what I have actually seen that they tend to win ultimately. As a general rule. I do not judge. I just observe. that is what I really think. I don't quite know why this is. Maybe just that women get things because they are pretty and smaller and cry more. there is nothing worse than making anyone cry. Maybe because we are mostly raised by mothers, or used to be, which gives women this kind of interesting power. I have no idea. I wish I could say something smart. My friend Michael said men emit and women absorb and that in both cases teh potential for insanity or serious pleasure exists. I don't even know if that is true. I just put it in there to smarten teh post up a bit with the view of an expert (he was a published writer, until he died, a lot of people liked him). One more thing. Defining yourself by the opposite sex's idea of what your gender should be like is, I am pretty sure at this point, teh stupidest thing. Like, the stupidest thing ever. I stole that idea from somewhere, i forget where. I do agree with one idea in your post. Men should never tell a woman directly that she is being irrational, unless he follows it up with something really, REALLY good, like sex or presents. It's just so wrong.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 1:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Be rational" is such a heavy trip to lay on someone, anyway. If someone told me to be rational, I'd be like, well, there goes 99.9% of the only things I have to say, probably like teh most inspirational and fun things for sure. what a drag. which is why I wish I could appreciate people more and be less critical of them. But it is really hard.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 3:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You have a point. I always embraced my depression and just read a lot of books through it. It used to be called melancholy before it was clinically labeled.Your reading tastes change each time you go through it as your taste in books can't satisfy you anymore and you must find something that speaks to this new you who is suffering in a particular way. So you pick up older books you have until you find one that speaks to you. At that point you have entered a new reading level. When I think of the crap I have read in the past I am surprised. They can't hold my interest now. It makes me critical of the crap I see people reading though. Right now I am reading Bolano. He was contemptuous of most of the greats in Latin American literature and CUT into their dominance with an entirely different way of writing. Just wonderful.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 10:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Huh. I don't know about this Foucaultian cut business. Frankly. And just offhand, I don't really see why dominating discourse is such a big problem. I mean, someone has to. Do you mean it in a sort of Hannah Arendt kind of boring machinelike discourse without much freshness in it? Or maybe it is like how when Gertrude Stein said "Rose is rose is a rose," she felt she had to say it in that particular way so that people would hear it because there'd already been plenty written about roses.
it's hard for me to relate to the idea of society as... I just have such a vast preference to what families have done to people that looking at society has done seems kind of moot or not nearly as juicy. maybe people don't create a Foucaultian cut. Maybe each of us is one. :-D
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 10:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I tried looking it up. This whole cutting off the head of teh king is a very old idea. ever sure if i understand certain things right or not, but I think it has to do with sort of being off center, not grounded, and fine. I guess you could say other things too. But where that was more a personal path, Foucault seems to have a similar idea and made it about other people, which is an interesting choice. Isn't he sort of known for butchering history and facts? And into inventing himself?
I don't know. I must be misunderstanding. I can see how such an idea can be traced to the patriarchy though. I mean, how needing to check power... my old shrink used to say it is hard for men because they just get used to and expect people to do what they want. I don't know. If you want to check power, love someone. That can be devestating. LOL. It's called have a personal life.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 1:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
two things. one, I was very excited to think of something post modern, a book, I liked, by douglas Coupland, Generation X. Joan Didion, who is just lovable, hs to be in there somewhere, and i like her. Love in the Time of Cholera, which is a just a novel, is awesome to read if you are depressed, because this guy loves this woman forever and ever even as she marries someone else, but they end up together eventually. Plus if I recall he is resourceful and smart and scrappy about it, a really good catch, but you know, married is married. She made a mistake.
I was wondering. That quotation by Foucault. the one about not knowing what the things you say do. what do teh things I say do?
OMG. John Irving is good to read depressed. Mary Gaitskill. I used to love the book Danger by Debbie Cymbalista, it is so weird and gnarly but something to it. Major OMG. Fran Lebowitz. Not very postmodern. But you are right, I guess people- i mean, people say they make art for these reasons, like that they want to represent their generation or whatever. Hemingway is awesome. the story about the elephants, the short story, 'letting the air in.' I think it may be called White Elephant. De Maupassant. balzac. Funny. Stop blathering on now. Shirley jackson's books about her children, or her horror fiction, which is just meaningful, not horrific at all. i am the only person who says that though- everyone else thinks she is scary. I think she just elucidates certain things about life that might be otherwise repressed, or things that occur in instances you might not ever think about again, for one thing. The Lottery is genuinely a scary story though but is so allegorical you can learn so much about yourself with how you interpret it, which is kind of nice (or can kind of precipitate a breakdown). Going now.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 11:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well no. I'm sorry, but that's crap. See, the thing is that such a thing denies women agency. Literally. Women cannot be SAD without a reference to men or men's ideas of the world? They're so weak that they are incapable of thinking that maybe they just don't want to do things to please a man, so they get depressed?
I find, at least for myself, that those kinds of thoughts are actually more disempowering than denying the "patriarchy" and getting on with the business of living. For example, sure the patriarchy tends to want women to be sex objects and not as powerful as men. I'm not denying that is true, BUT, I'm also a human being with agency, and as such, I have the power to think about a way to change my position in response. If I don't want to be a sex-object, no one can force me into hot pants. If I actually want to be powerful, I can study the biographies of powerful people, do what they did (note, don't pay attention to what they say, just what they DO) and do the very same thing. To wallow in the depression brought on by Patriarchy, or White Privilege or Straight Privilege (insert tribal enemy here) is to deny yourself agency and to deny yourself agency is to become a tool. Sure they can do whatever they want, but so can I.
The appeal, obviously of the victim mentality, especially for women, is exactly that. If the Patriarchy is keeping me down, it's not my fault. therefore not only do I not have to defeat the odds, but trying is futile. GET OUT OF JAIL FREE. I no longer have to do the hard work of making myself powerful -- why try if the Patriarchy isn't going to let that happen? So instead, I do other things and cry in women's lib circles about how hard it is to "make it in a man's world" mostly to other women who have also accepted the Patriarchy excuse for not achieving. Bovine Fecal Matter. Most of the time, it's about what you actually did, what you actually chose, and where you actually invested your time. But people generally don't want to hear that because then they'd have to change their ways. If I am the reason that I don't have power even if I want to, I might have to do something about it. If I made the choice to dress like a prostitute, then I bare some of the responsibility for the leers of the people around me. If it's all the Patriarchy, I don't have to do anything. Patriarchy is the comforting alcohol that keeps women from taking agency. I think the same is true of other groups. So long as you can think someone is holding you down, you don't have to succeed.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 1:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry but your thinking is very outdated on feminism. The clothes thing for example. The Patriarchy. The issue is gender trouble (Judith Butler). Think your way out of this, but learn to think clearly as you do it.
I was married right after graduating from college. We dated for 2 years and had a peaceful relationship. No drama. As sson as we were married the drama started. After 5 1/2 months and his hitting me twice (yes I am provocative)I sat down one Sunday and thought. I could see 3 children and 15 years later being in the same place. I asked myself if I wanted to start over then or now. I decided now. Fortunately I had finished college and had a profession so I could support myself and I had parents I could return to as he would have been a terroristic stalker to get me back. Women have known terrorism forever. It is nothing new. It is just now that it is being directed against the government that the government has awakened to it.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 1:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
as rse in theory, in reality (I've hung around feminists and lesbians who are pretty much always feminists because of being involved in gay rights and pagan and wiccan spirituality), so- in reality, most of the women I knew were strong, likable and lovable. They did stuff for themselves and the world pretty much too. I do think labeling something as patriarchal can obfuscate the issue rather than help it, because I'm not sure it is a good focus. But in reality, yes. Most of these women were pretty cool. Of course that is the more radical end of the spectrum. There is also an enormous problem within those circles of ... doing what all groups do, bashing on individuals and groups they don't like unfairly at times. the feminists who are really into the pro-sex, adventurous feminism sex thing were pretty awful to ANdrea Dworkin, who is, after all, just a writer. But they spoke of her as if she was the antichrist even though they didn't actually read her. I remember the really pro-sex ones also had nothing to say about a girls's right to say no or wait until she is married. I worry, for example, about young women choosing that with 'I'm a feminist' as a sort of cover story when in reality there are lots of other issues going on inside of them that don't get addressed if they get so wrapped up in seeing it as a feminist issue. I still do not get, other than in an affordable birth control and the right to make choices, how sex is a feminist issues, really. Sex is just sex. I guess I could read a book about it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 1:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That is supposed to be common, that getting married, having a baby, moving in together, and major life changes bring about such huge emotions that people get swamped with it, sometimes out of the blue. I don't know anything about the psychology of abusers; I guess it could be considered a feminist issue. I hate to even give them that much though, because when you start to try to breathe life into them, give them a profile, understand what they are doing and why, as pretty much all abused women do, you are focusing on the abuser and they continue to live, and live, and live and it does keep you weak because it keeps you boggled and preoccupied with the abuser. It's really bad. I mean, it sounds like you just split. Not like you had the same problem as that, but i am just saying.
So I can see how what you say would illustrate it is not a patriarchy problem. Actually you and soandso were saying the same thing, right? Just that you have to turn it around and make it a personal issue and not stay preoccupied with the other side, so to speak.
So then how is it still a feminist issue? Is it considered a female tendency to kill themselves trying to make things work and to stick around in a bad situation? Or just a feminist issue because women get hit more often? Or what?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 2:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Concerning feminism and sex Simone de Beauvoir nailed it ( no pun intended):"Most men cannot tell the difference between a free woman and a loose woman."
As a young woman you feel you cannot say "no." You no longer have repression as an excuse for yourself. You no longer have society's mores with you to wait until YOU are ready. This is what Twilight exposed and blew wide open.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 2:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For me it was a matter of seeing to the end of something. It is, as I have found, unusual in this fast food culture and getting rarer. I could just see where it was going to go. I was not a victim of that "ideology" of working at a marriage, working hard to make it work, which usually means giving up your own aspirations to make it work. Ultimately you have to lie to yourself and settle and then forget you did that and then forget that you forgot.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 2:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hm. You politicize your art. I've seen a lot of that is literary criticism. maybe it is true that women in general feel victimized by using their sexuality to get things like security or the illusion of it and so that is what makes Edward attractive. that's certainly a very precise and specific thing to say. Or maybe it is just that he is perceived as having something most men do not, a bit of a caretaker streak that makes him consider his partner which can often disappear when sex is on the table. It is slightly odd that the act of having sex should be in a sense divisive, making people think only of themselves, rather than kind of meliorating, a blurring of boundaries. But in a way that makes sense, because people have armor, always have and always will, and fear of rejection and blah blah. I think it would be way too easy to judge that and get all gooey about how sex 'should' be. Which is like politiczing art, drawing morals from it, making it into shoulds. then it becomes easy to see things through this lens of what you want to be true, think things should be, think you should be.
I've never been married. I hate when people ask why because I'm so old I don't really remember why. It's just because I never met anybody I wanted to marry or who I thought it would work with and I massively wanted to avoid divorce, becaue when my parents divorced it was like seeing a fairy tale break, and if a fairy tale can break then any bad thing can happen, right? It was really awful. It's like telling your child that soemthing as huge as love can be a total lie. A mistake.
I don't think there is a fairy tale land where you have this marriage and you don't do any work, and I think categorically saying that the ideology of having this thing and maintaining it is bad or oppressive sends a really bad message to kids. Also, it is very easy to get caught up in many equally taxing and vexing situations even if you never marry because you don't want the headache. At some point, that's just life. Something always comes along that is vexing. I guess you would have to consider the payback, or potential payback.
But you know what? It makes me insane when couples on television say things like, marriage is hard work! You have to make sacrifices! that drives me crazy. I think what a horrible outlook to put out to the world about how you perceive your partner. I think if I ever do it I'll just insinuate that it might be hard but I hang in there for the awesome sex, or something. At least that is cheerful.
Also, don't you find that at times in life some fairly profound things get easy? there is a place, usually in relatinships, although I have at times found it at work, where what is selfish and what is selfless gets really blurred ad things are easy. Like where yuou really can't say with precison... that whatever you are doing to make stuff work is selfish or is selfless, because things get mashed up? It just simply is, for a time, worth it. It doesn't feel a certain way. It just is.
I am a huge fan of things that just are. there is some poem about 'a poem should not mean, but be.' Something like that.
As someone who has done long term bad relationships... one of them, anyway,... I would say you don't lose track of all the sacrifices and trying and trying while you are there. I'm not sure, i wonder if that may in fact be soe ind of myth. You can or I could lose track and forget totally when I left. that was the dangerous part. For me. But as I type this I think, wow, what a relief, I think I knew I was miserable the whole time, and knew why, at least. i was raising a child and was poor and blah blah. So I was kind of stuck for financial and stability reasons, for my kid. that was a huge mistake. I should have toughed it out further; eventually something would have opened up, or we'd have both died with dignity, LOL.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 2:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ha ha ha ha. I made a funny. I love that, you know: he can be a handful, but the hot sex sees me through (dramatic sigh)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 3:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm sorry, but I so love that. "Things get dramatic, but at least we have SOME standards." (more dramatic sighs).No, but, what do you mean girls no longer have repression as an excuse? believing they are repressed as opposed to simply growing into their sexuality probably totally lends itself to girls then deciding they want to UN-repressed by the big mean patriarchal culture.
Girls used to in some cultures have special girlfriends when they were young to sort of help them sort it out. I did that. I think people should tolerate that. because nowadays, when kids do that they feel they must also hang a lot of stuff on it, I am bisexual, I am a feminist lesbian. I don't know if the need to label it and make it part of identity is because they are teenagers. Probably because that sounds like teenagers, precisely. But culturally we could still be tolerant of that sort of thing. Because at least for me, dealing with boys and their sexuality was just way too much at fourteen and on up for a while. It was exhausting and not fulfilling and really a lot of work. So I liked girls, which was a lot better. For a while.
weirdly, I knew this too. I mean, i read Colette and stuff, so lesbian stuff and special girlfriends were no big shocker to me. It just seems kind of uncharacteristic of a very young girl to sort of be like, and I used to literally say this, being in a small boat on very rocky waters. For like, forever, because the energy level is insane. Who wants that? Ugh. i wonder if this post will get deleted. It's the truth though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 3:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think all good art is political. It may take some time to see why. Clearly Guernica is openly political but it is also great art. althoug Alice Miller has a different reading of it.
Through all of my childhood I was exposed to lots of "marriages" lving on a street of semi detached houses and we all played together then and went into each other's homes. Then in an apartment complex and on into babysitting years. So I saw lots of different kinds of marriages and I never saw one that I wanted to grow up and "have," looking at all this backwards. But marriage is part of the Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge/capital/normality. Marriage doesn't have to be the way it is, which is the reason people say it is a lot of work. When you are in the throes of lust you don't think of it that way until you come down. The way we have constructed the world we live in is really stupid. I liked living in a coop in the 60's and 70's but gradually everyone paired off and went to their little abode to swell and raise the nuclear family. Ho hum boredom was the way I looked at it. When my high school girl friends got married and had babies, they weren't my friends anymore the way they had been. I missed that. Even now as an old lady it is hard to be friends with married women. "Oh I can't do that because I have to get home and make Harold's dinner at 6." I mean gimme a break, Harold doesn't know how to stick something in a microwave or cook an egg? LOL!You can't go places with them or do anything, or collaborate on anything important to both of you.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 3:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you don't feel like having sex as a teen you can't think in terms of repression because the feminists have told you it doesn't exist. It's just the patriarchy telling you to remain a virgin for them. After all virgins are great for insecure men because they can't compare. Men now have to step up their game and please the woman or they ain't gonna get any nookie anymore are they. LOL! So now men feel performance anxiety because they are being judged now as a good or bad lay the way women used to be. The result is everyone pretends to be super good now in bed.
Marriage normalizes the relationship. Aftr all Paul said, "It is better to marry than to burn." That way you can get the work of capitalism done. Ursula LeGuin has written many fantast sci fi stories of future relationships between men and men, women and women, bi-sexuals, transsexuals, and heterosexuals and has set them in a different world that supports the way she has written them. I found myself really liking many of them and thinking I would like to live like that. I like the way Temple Grandin's mother brought her up. The time she spent with her aunt on a farm and the time she spent in that wonderful progressive school. But then her mother was a Vassar graduate and told the doctors who wanted to institutionalize her that she thought since she was a Vassar graduate she could keep up with what they had to say. And then she disagreed with them and did it differently. This is what it takes though. Knowing and the courage to do it differently.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 5:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Mm. I am surprised to hear that teenagers don't repression. If they do not know the word they certainly have the concept firmly in their minds, wouldn't they? That seems like the quintessential teenage thing. Like the song changes by David Bowie, all that... Maybe I am misunderstanding repression. It seems to me to be teh easiest psychological defense mechanism to understand, the intuitive first choice. I am looking it up, hold on.
Okay, I have to say, first off, that I am sick to death- SICK TO DEATH- of reading about defense mechanisms that psychoanalysts say are not defense mechanisms. I swear to God. I wish I were smarter so I could come up with things to sit and watch them make hideously complicated, you know? Just that kind of brain.
Crap. I quit. I'm like, not today. No, teenagers- sex is seriously not for teenagers, in a sense. Sex at that age is all energy and no focus. then I guess by your arguement people get married and it is all focus and no energy. Or something.
I want to hear a psychoanalyst explain why a dog is not a dog, the sky is not really blue, and additionally, why that matters.
Weird. I always saw feminism hand in hand with repression, like intuitively. then the problem is, if you know the concept of repression, which I definitely did, solving it or any of it should it start to matter probably becomes harder, not easier.
Erica Jong said that truth about love was that it is all its cracked up to be. (Potentially). I find that idea on some level much more disturbing and much more terrifying than just going, well, it is all bullshit. I also think that people from what I can tell get further married than they do single. DEfinitely my sisters. the problem isn't that the marriage is bad- they both have good marriages, not what I would want, but good. the problem is, that the way they think about them is screwy, and I don't think feminism helps this. I mean, it tells them they are getting screwed a lot of the time. But I think that they themselves might not know what it is that they themselves as individuals are getting out of being married, in terms of self actualization. But that is not really a gender thing, is it? It is more a love thing, this hugely prevalent idea that love is about self sacrifice if it is good, if it is virtuous. I would agree with people who crticize christianity for--- or rather, christians--- for putting forth this sort of denial of self as a good thing or as an overly good thing.
another huge problem is, people don't know how or stop developing as they age, it seems. There is a lot less growing. Or at any rate, a lot less discussion of it. I'm not into saying people have to. for all I care, they can turn into fossils if it makes them happy. Every day I don't have to consciously create myself is a great day for me; I grew up in that culture and saw a lot of bullshit there. But I think something about development needs to be put out there for older people, some sense of meaningful continuation that is not out there right now.
I am sure- because sometimes I do this- that people take individual issues and make them into couple issues and take couple issues and make them into individual ones. And so that can probably get pretty vicious. Like blame their own individual issues on their relationship being bad. BUT, in sense, and I have never heard anyone say this, there is a rightness there. there is something right about that, because if you married it, sorry, it is yours. And so in a way, its problems are yours.
I suppose it may be true that people get their person--- their life partner, a phrase that makes me gag, but whatever--- and because of feeling unlovable, and because of wanting to make oneself lovable, they do things, like always be home to make dinner. But I think a lot of that is self inflicted.
I lived briefly with a guy who could not use teh microwave to make his own tea. Saudi Arabian. he was a grown up exchange student. It sucked pretty bad. He also once would not even try homemade chicken and dumplings i made because he wanted eggs. so I guess that kind of dramatic, insane lack of courtesy can happen. In places like Saudi Arabia.
But in teh U.S., I think women can be their own worst enemy, for one reason or another, not because there is some guy torturing them.
My self esteen is huge right now because I am thinking of all the really wrong decisions I didn't make. I'm like, whoo-hoo.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 5:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
and in a way, ... also, society tells us very plainly in america that we must continue to grow as we age and that it is not okay to become a fossil. this also makes me insane. I think the fossils of the world who hae become comfortable and happy should start saying, "No, it is okay, I don't have grow any more, because damn it, I got it right and this is how i will stay." It is at least equally as valuable a concept as trying to grow more.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 28, 2013 6:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't know if I am right or not, but I really think teenagers should be the e to really understand repression. things tend to happen to people on two sides at once, or at least they do to me. While you get one thing, like self self self meaning meaning meaning, which as far as I can tell is teh huge teenage thing, you get this whole other side. this may just be me. Where you sort of know you are a pain in teh ass. Which probably gets in teh way of what is more important if you are a teenager, which is self and meaning and being really sometimes obnoxious. I can see me and i can see my daughter here. Kind of. So if you have good parents then you can figure they are stuck loving you anyway and get on with living your life. And if you have bad parents, well, you can always hope.
Which is teh ultimate mean trick society lays by using psychology badly. It sort of puts forward this idea that with consciousness and your own mind you can fix it, fix anything. Just work it out. I would be biased here because my family wins the ultimate prize for this sort of thing. But I think it is valid in the bigger picture as well. I think it is a real thing. Ithink certain people get more extreme with it than others and it can do some good things as well as create tons of damage. Which only illustrates, to me anyway, that ... while people tend to get really wrapped up in language and teh reasoning they put on things, thinking that is the most important, it is not. That's just teh stupid mind.
But what is important, sort of, is teh ritual. Isn't it? Not the meaning. Because ritual just says certain things must be done because they must. That is how it is, and that is how it will be. And I don't really see that the world puts forth that idea at all. Because we all like to be so reasonable. And sometimes because we are taking care of other people. Because as you become aware of yourself you become aware of other people, in good ways or in bad ways.
And people don't laugh about it. Ever. My stepmom does- that is one thing she can do really well, laugh about this kind of tension that happens where you find yourself in weird positions where you are sort of like "today is NOT YOUR DAY." Unfortunately for her, because of who she is, it is pretty much always her day I think.
I have a headache. I'm not quite sure that made sense it seems unusually abstract for me. I think I should just sit down and eat something good.
Hmn. Re-read this and kind of thought, well, maybe being reasonable could be thought of as a form of self righteousness which would explain why when people are doing it they get so fucking serious and hardcore. But again, that is very definitely my family, like, totally. "Be like us! We are right!" i always think of it- my understanding of narcissism is intuitive rather than very well thought out at all. Except on a really good day. But I always think of it as teh worst form of narcissism possible. And tyrannical, sure. But patriarchal? Not at all, it is very much characteristic of my mother and more so of the women in my family. the guys are kittens in comparison. As are most of the men I've had in my life. So I don't know.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 7:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When you are a teen and you just don't want to have sex with your date you are in a catch-22. Guys are like if not by the 3rd date, I'm moving on. so the girl wants to date but she doesn't feel sexually excited by him, but she likes him a lot, so what does she do. Many just go have sex as they don't want to not be dated nor have a boyfriend. So they do it to accommodate without getting any special enjoyment from it, just maybe practicing. The boy thinks she doesn't like him if she doesn't. You used to never be put in that position especially if you were a virgin. Today a girl can't say know without all kinds of baggage being attached to her no. Simple repression, which may or may not be the case, no longer suffices. She doesn't feel that she has a right to say no and still be attractive to date. She is liberated but she is no longer free to say no without encrumbances.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 7:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
DEATH- of reading about defense mechanisms that psychoanalysts say are not defense mechanisms. I swear to God. I wish I were smarter so I could come up with things to sit and watch them make hideously complicated, you know? Just that kind of brain.
Psychoanalysts usually do not go around saying defense mechanisms are not defense mechanisms. You may find pop psychologists doing that. Anna Freud coined them and they are useful to know. But to define one, IT HAS TO BE UNCONSCIOUS so if you think you are using one, you are not.
Crap. I quit. I'm like, not today. No, teenagers- sex is seriously not for teenagers, in a sense. Sex at that age is all energy and no focus. then I guess by your arguement people get married and it is all focus and no energy. Or something.
I really really like those sentences.
Anything by Eric Jong is almost certain to be pop. she's cute but not a serious writer.
On growing.
Like evolution which continues by microscopic changes until an Event shatters the world I think people are like that. They get in a comfort zone and don't want to leave it. It takes something shattering to break in and disrupt that comfort zone. But it is not necessary that you seek it. If it is your destiny it will certainly come along.
Young men improve as time goes by. I'm 79 and my bf is 26 and a computer nerd, funny, very smart and not after sex. Thank god. He is turned off by all the predatory females of his generation because he thinks they are dumb. I guess if he wants to hang with me for going on 4 years he means what he says. I am who I am at any given time and I can't imagine anyone I have been with in the past that could tolerate me today. I have been banned from most sites except my own! LOL!
As for growth again. in 2009 I stumbled across Foucault in a wicked rainstorm in October ducking into a Church thrift
store run by old ladies going out of business after decades there. I took the book, asked how much and she said all books are free, so I walked out with what I knew was a treasure. I had heard of Foucault before, read and heard some sound-bites but I was not prepared to have my mind scrubbed clean with baby fine steel wool and everything I already knew (tons of information as I am a junky about that)all reordered in my brain. Wow! It was like a permanent high for over a year while I read everything by him. Then I began on Baudrillard in his Forget Foucault and spun around again. Foucault has his first book in the 1960's on psychology as he was going to be a psychologist (he was gay having problems with that) and it is awesome. I read the first part and after 25 years of psychology and psychoanalysis said, "I am fucked." Then I read the second section and he redid it and that is about when he redefined madness (using Artaud) as an absence of "work" meaning artistic work not scrubbing floors.
So I breathed a sigh of relief and ordered more Foucault books and kept on. I was transformed to put it mildly. I had never expected this to happen at all, not at all,and what's more was not even thinking about it anymore. I had just finished Toynbee and had decided that the US was definitely in disintegration as an empire - all the signs were blatantly obvious and it's worse now than in 09 if you are looking with this eye - and I had been in a huge depression from Toynbee and ready to die to get out of it after Obama got in. I spent 8 years hating Bush and writing about that!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 8:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is me but I am on a strange computer and forgot to fill in the blanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 8:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This whole blog can be summed up as "I am in the Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge/normality. You sort of know it but since you haven't gone through Foucault it is pretty fuzzy.Clear it up then you can shrug your shoulders and not be concerned because everyone is in it whether they consciously know it or not. It is only at this point that you can be effective in what you want to do about it.
Foucault has said a number of things I really like. One is:
Don't ask me to stay the same.I write to become someone other than who I am.People know what they say. They even frequently know why they say what they say. BUt what they don't know is what they say does.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 8:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It is a statement that is stupidly formed. Changing is not something you must do or not do. When change comes to you it draws you into changing, it beckons you, it is not something you produce ona regular basis. Everything can remain the same while lightening strikes you and you just from then on think differently.
Unfortunately this almost always occurs when someone "falls in love" and turns everything upside down in their life. When things settle down with the "new love" things become the same old- same old.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 8:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Answering here for sometimes things are just what they are. A cigar is just a cigar.
Here is Foucault and Baudrillard on that reading through fashion:
http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2012/05/kristen-stewart-helena-bonham-carter.html?zx=50c0303516eaa4f
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 1:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"I'm 79 and my bf is 26 and a computer nerd, funny, very smart and not after sex."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 5:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
oh well, that thing makes sense, about boys being kind of expectant about sex after the third date. and all that. so I see what you mean now. thanks.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 9:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not talking about feminism, I'm talking about how some feminists have latched onto an excuse of "being kept down" because it's simply easier to think it's about being a woman rather than do the reality testing to see if it's other people holding you back or if it's you holding you back.
I think a lot of people tend to do this -- not just in the case of feminists talking about Patriarchy, which is what TLP speaks of here, but just as commonly in all kinds of other things. If you think your boss "has it in for you" then this is the excuse for not achieving. You have agency, you always have agency, that's the point. But when people go out of their way to declare that thus and so person is holding them down, it's a way to deny any agency, and thus any responsibility for that situation. If I can't get a promotion because my boss has it in for me, then any decisions I made at that point are beside the point. my decision not to stay late to work on a project doesn't matter if he has it in for me. Of course, if that's not what's going on, then not only am I holding myself back with stupid decisions, but i'm also never going to figure out how to fix that, because I've made an excuse that denies that I need to change.
Narcissism -- defense against change, correct? which is one reason that such defense mechanisms are popular. First off, you get a nemisis for your movie (evil bossman holding you down, throwing you under the bus, and piling on more work because he hates you), but you get a reason that it's not YOU that's the problem. You're the hero, struggling against a boss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_Wears_Prada_%28film%29) who just doesn't understand you. even if you've made very little effort to fit in.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 9:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
what defense mechanism would you be employing when you are a sanctimonious self righteous toady with a severely limited understanding of narcissism? Would that be intellectualization?
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 29, 2013 11:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's difficult to talk about narcissism here as psychiatry and psychoanalysis are so different but in the mass mind they are the same, interchangeable. What is important about narcissism is "the narcissistic defense" which is characterized by the aggression turned against the self. It takes at least 5 years to penetrate that defense. First the patient - and I say patient not client - must have their defenses strengthened, not penetrated. It is only when the defenses are strong that the patient can afford to let them weaken and then go. The wounds go back to infancy with the mother. Just look around you at mothers and babies and if you allow yourself to feel you will know exactly what I mean. It is a horror show and the infants only defense is to shut down and erect the "wall of narcissism" for protection. Really the infant has no choice if they are to have any protection at all from the narcissistic mother. Treating them is a mess because the mother won't let go and sabotages treatment at every opportunity. So you must work carefully with the mother and strengthen her defenses so she will allow the child to stay in treatment. The best case of hundreds and hundreds I have read is Francoise Dolto's Dominique:An Analysis of an Adolescent Boy. If you read this you will know more than 99% of everyone else. It is a Lacanian analysis and it is so superb it is a work of art. There is nothing like it in all the literature but Dolto was a genius.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 12:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I presume you are referring to me. If you want to insult me, you will hae to do better than this. C'mon bring it on.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 12:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well yes feminists do this but all people do it so it is not a defining attribute of feminism. It is just pure displacement. Nothing new here folks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 12:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Though I haven't read this one, I despise Cormac McCarthy. No Country for Old Men and The Road made me realise you don't need to be able to write to be published; but then I've read The Bible three times and almost none of the whore leeches who wrote that drivel could write to save themselves. That didn't stop them from publishing 8 billion copies.
The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else.
Is that a fact? The judge is an imbecile who lacks the capacity to appreciate the reality of emotional degradation. The mothers of men were not born for games either; misogyny's acid did that to them (made them combative, vile and malicious Toddlers; i.e. emotionally degraded them).
Every child knows that play is nobler than work.
Is that a fact? This judge screams like an exploited Toddler whore of misogyny (they always speak for the entire world when they make moronic assertions).
He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard.
Russian roulette would be the most valuable and meritious game of all, in that case.
Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all.
This is idiotic because it's the other way around. The more you wager, the less meaning the wager has. It's why gamblers move up stakes when their incapacity to process grade school mathematics doesn't justify their gambling at all (for any stakes). A great deal of my skill actually had very little to do with skill and a lot more to do with sleaze; you could have more raw skill than I (in the sense that you'd have positive expectation at a lower limit) but I would simply destroy you if you played at a limit where your valuation of what I no longer valued had the capacity to make you blink.
You blink, I win. If you had the discipline to think better of it, I win. If you can moved off pots by making thin value bets (technically sound at lower limits where you'd call off a check-shove), I'd check-shove $15,000 and make these technically proficient players (for want of a more apt description) my whipped bitches. I had a great deal of skill; I rose up through the stakes from micro-limits to the nosebleed games - but my (dubious) capacity to compartmentalise the (dubious) value of the wagered stakes rendered me nearly unplayable. The result was endless sitouts when I'd sit which might be important to a demented victim of their mother (who values utterly worthless considerations such as respect, appearances, ego and honour) but all it would do for me was make me scream in frustration.
To be competitive at the elite level of anything, you have to sacrifice everything. Anyone who cannot understand that will never compete at the elite level of anything. I screamed in frustration not because I enjoyed playing (I hated everything about the game) but because I simply had nothing else to live for.
It goes without saying that elite competition is a lifestyle worse than death. But all you sociopaths get perfectly horrifying when the Olympics are on, I've noticed. You empathy-bankrupt victims of your needy psychotic Toddler mothers just love it when others suffer to please you.
You're all sociopaths-in-denial. You can't deny it. I've noticed how that doesn't present a hurdle for those who do not value truth.
Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them.
Ugh. The problem with reduced humans who don't value truth is they continually contradict themselves. This assertion contradicts the immediately prior assertion. And the immediate subsequent assertion! It's babbling insanity. If you're confused, why cannot games of chance be played with identical values listed above for games of sport?
This is degrading idiocy.
But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.
Yes. A condition of war that is not natural but religious cannibalistic M.A.D. The product of misogyny's acid spraying of girls by filthy, emotionally degraded, leeching whores who know what is Right (insanity) and what is Wrong (five million years of winning DNA selected for superiority in the purest competition of all; Natural Selection).
We fight wars because our filthy mothers have been smeared with religious misogyny. They are turned into miserable, filthy leeches obsessed with reducing men and smearing them with their own shame at their own biological desires and their unfathomably horrific and overwhelming Toddler obsession with sex.
With the exception of only a couple of you, you're all babbling worthless insanity. I read it all. You don't value truth. It's worthless discourse until you value truth. If you cannot understand that, you're too idiotic to be an idiot. You'd be insane. None of can hold a torch to my capacity for logic. It's because you don't value truth, you batshit Polite Society sleazy leeches. If you only value 'nice' lies and despise 'rude' truths, how can you expect to ever learn anything that way?
Until you understand that I am right, you don't need to be educated so much as you need to die. Truth is not considerate. I have no more patience for those who need to value lies to obfuscate the fact that they are worthless liabilities. They have no value. How can they?
They don't value what is true.
The dominating discourse is considerate exchanges of psychotic, emotionally-degraded, needy, polite non-truths. An incomplete truth is a lie.
Truth is the CUT.
Nothing but the sharpest truth will do.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 10:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The Last Psychiatrist may have some good qualities but is overall really such a disappointment to me personally. He installs spyware on my computer and steals my material. But then he does not even use the material well. So not what I have is Jonny talking about truth in a highly specific manner which I just did last night. Although, since Jonny is a fictional character and a total asshole, while teh subject is absolutely the same the content is not wholly mine. But the point is, just the disrespectfulness. And also when someone knows better but does something anyway. I can't believe I hae such a total jerk in my life.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 11:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The worst thing is, I didn't choose to be here. He chose for me to be here, which means he owes me something. Like to at least be a good host. He's a lousy host. Jonny steals my material, sometimes Seymour Blogger, others. they're all totally fake. he makes them up. And they are so unattractive i don't really want to be the impetus for things they write but i clearly am often enough and have been over and over.
Anyone would have enough common sense to make spyware able to be uninstalled. You would think. Hell, most people would be smart enough to not break the law in the first place. I'm not a huge fan of criminals. AND he keeps doing it even though he knows perfectly well it upsets me and hurts my feeling. So, no regard for my feelings. I also dislike seeing psychology butchered by Seymour Blogger. It does not make teh world a better place.
It reminds me of The Joker in Batman cartoons. Someone who just does not have limits and does not know when to quit, and does not care, apparently.
In some religions, you reserve totally withholding hospitality- like shunning-for people who have done something really wrong. I haven't done anything wrong and I can't really aford to fix my computer if that fix would even last. I did not choose to be here. And now there is emotional baggage as well. None of this is my fault. It's not my mess. I could get better treatment by any guy on a crosstown bus. Any guy in an elevator. Any guy in any bar anywhere.
I don't know why he lacks personal standards or why it is suddenly okay to drop them all. But it is discourteous to me.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 11:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
And, for a psychiatrist- or in this case actually a psychologist, because calling himself a psychiatrist is a lie--- it is a reasonably forseeable consequence that this would or could get very messy emotionally. Which it has. For me. And it is very easy to say 'just don't read it' but when often times the main blog entry is taken from words you wrote it is understandable you might want to see what is being done with those words. Same thing with comments. And I think it is irresponsible to me as a person and also as a mental health patient. Because teh simple truth is that he should know and be able to see certain things, there is a slightly higher standard that one should expect. Because of his being a shrink.
I noticed the last time i posted anything like this it got nicely handled right away by what I can only guess were more fake people. Nicely handled and turned into nothing. That's deft. It must be nice to sometimes on teh one hand imply emotional involvement and on the other hand handle things in such a way that it would certainly appear one can be calm enough to prioritize covering one's own ass.
I think that is talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
But what both of those things don't address is well my well being, of course.
I think I would be fine to just have this all stop and the spyware removed, if it is there, if he is not just logging into my computer somehow. I noticed after I got my hard drive wiped and reformatted that I couldn't connect to any netowrk without making it a home network and linking it to my other computer. I don't know if that has anything to do with how he got back into this computer. It's just, you know, I do not have time to handle all of this stuff and I don't know how. I can only guess. It's tiresome and like I said potentially expensive. I don't know how I handled it emotionally but he knew before and knew all along I don't exactly have teh most normal psychological makeup. I barely kept my head about water a lot. Which was his fault and I do not know where he was during that time- oh wait, I do. he was putting my words into a bunch of despicable fake characters mouths and also making blog entries, some of which were very cruel to me. He was certainly functional. Just not responsible.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 12:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Spyware comes from bit.torrenting. If it is on this site it just means that it hasn't been scrubbed yet and somebody who was infected came here and posted a comment.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 12:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are beginning to sound delusional.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 4:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And you, Alone, are beginningt to look predatory.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 5:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you folks are still here?
well, jonny, your last response was probably the most lucid of the bunch. i particularly liked this observation: "It goes without saying that elite competition is a lifestyle worse than death."
question about your last response to me though: what do you mean when you say that my empathy is bankrupted? (are you saying that there are limits to how empathic i can be, and that i've reached those limits? i'm not denying it, but i'm also not convinced it's something that demands a defense.)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 10:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Last Psychiatrist may have some good qualities but is overall really such a disappointment to me personally. He installs spyware on my computer and steals my material. But then he does not even use the material well. So not what I have is Jonny talking about truth in a highly specific manner which I just did last night. Although, since Jonny is a fictional character and a total asshole, while teh subject is absolutely the same the content is not wholly mine. But the point is, just the disrespectfulness. And also when someone knows better but does something anyway. I can't believe I hae such a total jerk in my life.
Dude if Alone is installing spyware on your systems, I'd be very surprised; what on Earth would be his motive?
We are all fictional characters but I endeavour to be as real as I can be, taking into account the fact that none of our feelings are technically real (no matter how strongly we might feel them). On another corner of the Internet I wrote that love is nothing but a pre-lie. No one has ever lived happily ever after, so whilst I know for a fact that sociopaths feel emotions to be true in the moment they're with you (how else could they be convincing?) - every time you feel love, it's merely just a lie that hasn't hatched yet.
I am not an asshole, on the contrary; at times my empathy is debilitating in this world of senseless horror. I will never be respectful of anyone who cares about considerations of respect. They're inherently impossible to respect because they are needy. They need to respect themselves and when they do, they will not need the external validation of others to tell them they're doing the right thing or to confirm they're on the right track or remind them that they're valued or appreciated or...all external validation will ever be is a confirmation that your exploitation is proceeding swimmingly.
If I'm the jerk, I'm not in your life. If Alone is the jerk, neither is he. You need to get your own life back from whomever took it away from you and I don't mean confront them necessarily, but take ownership of what you do and wear the consequences for better or for worse (prior to the doing). Striving to embrace truth and what is real and tangible will go a long way to wherever it is you want to go, as well.
The path you are on is not The Way to Happiness. I'd bet my life on it. You need to change...everything.
nb. Every system has spyware on it, and what's more, that people imagine encryption like PGP or Bitlocker or Tor would ever be given away freely by those who obsess over power is laughable to the point of being grounds for termination of stupidity. Don't sweat the malware. Everything about you that anyone wants to know can be found by the right coders; technology has so many creepy backdoors, you could code your entire life and never be safe because those backdoors aren't inadvertent. Try not doing things that shame you rather than exerting effort worrying about whether your shame will be exposed?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 10:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree. Anyway malware and spyware comes from bit.torrenting. In other words downloading stuff you aren't paying for that are illicit contraband: movies; music, etc. I could come here with it and comment and then you're commenting here could pick it up. They do not scrub wordpress or google every second so there are probably times when it is here as that stuff is endemic. I let my neighbor use my ISP connection when he moved in until he got that together and he was bit.torrenting and put spyware on 2 of my machines. One of them has never been the same.
"No good deed shall go unpunished."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2013 10:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
question about your last response to me though: what do you mean when you say that my empathy is bankrupted? (are you saying that there are limits to how empathic i can be, and that i've reached those limits? i'm not denying it, but i'm also not convinced it's something that demands a defense.)
I mean that your mind is, at least in some important self-preservation aspects, superior (or more adaptable, at the very least) to mine; bankrupted might not be the right word but your mind has adjusted to the endless assaults of this sleazy world of emotional manipulators (they take aim at empathy with the intent of milking humans for all their humane worth). So the empathy might be there, but your mind has thrown up defensive counter-measures that protect you from feeling the suffering (real or faux) of others = you're protected from being exploitable / prevented from being humane / restricted from perceiving a more Selfish / true reality. The emotional manipulators = Christians, mothers, any leeches, marketing / advertising / sales, anyone who wants someone else to do something that isn't really in their best interest, anyone who can't be bothered making a logical case for others to want to act in their own best interests.
For various reasons and not for want of trying, I never managed to kill my empathy (which in this world is a double-edged sword - it really shouldn't be; it should have been the binding force that unites the species, protecting us from all threats). We don't have any external threats. Our only internet threats are mothers, really. But religion / mothers corrupted love and reversed it into a Self-less needy emotion which enslaves all victims by blinding them to their own Selfish interests and simultaneously corrupts their perception of everything. Cue war.
"You don't want to love--your eternal and abnormal craving is to be loved. You aren't positive, you're negative. You absorb, absorb, as if you must fill yourself up with love, because you've got a shortage somewhere."- DH Lawrence
In a hypothetical where I was given the option to live life without empathy or with empathy (without changing any other variables), I'd probably think long and hard before choosing to endure the pain of living with it. It's invaluable. The advantages it affords me are likely not even fully realised by me. On the flipside, pictures of suffering and horror obliterate me. Or walking past 8-year-old child prostitutes on a busy street turning the heads of absolutely no one except pedophiles (and I) by pulling their skirts up and mimicking their more experienced older sisters (15-19 yr olds who would be turning a lot of heads) is a horrifying blast of reality / trauma.
We live in a world of sociopaths-in-denial. Almost all their caring is faux; even if they don't realise it (they only feel as a function of necessity; they feel what they know they're supposed to feel in any given situation but all their feelings amount to needy Emotional Currency - so they say "Sorry" and feel contrite / remorse / distraught but only because they know it's appropriate to feel that way; or they say "Thank you" in exhuberance / gratitude / fondness without realising their feelings are sub-worthless and insulting to give away [as if they had intrinsic value by virtue of being felt & expressed by them]).
Toddler whore mothers who want everyone to be their exploitable slaves are to blame for blinding the entire species to their true individual and collective best interests (which are irrefutably humanitarian and not cannibalistic, predatory, or reductive / destructive). To be a needy predator who preys on the exploitable is not Selfish. It's Self-less misery that drives the need for malice and the need for lies and the need for collateral damage (M.A.D.)
I don't think love is the problem anymore. I think imagined need is destroying everything. The Buddha loved himself and saw a pristine Utopian reality of Selfish potential.
"If you truly loved yourself, you could never hurt another."- the Buddha
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 12:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I will say this. If you wake up while in the presence of people faking their feelings with socially accepted masks for them, it can drive you mad. To be that aware is so totally shocking you are completely spooked. It is a horrible experience. Before talking all this is just gibberish to babies and they learn to talk by repeating sound bites. Speaking is defined as communication, but it is really about learning to talk so as not to communicate anything. The process is slow enough that it gets by you without your noticing. But then IF you become aware, the jolt is horrendous.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 6:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
two interesting comments:
1. "emotional manipulators = Christians, mothers, any leeches, marketing / advertising / sales, anyone who wants someone else to do something that isn't really in their best interest". in concept, not too controversial. but i suspect you have an idiosyncratic definition of "mothers".
2. "empathy ... in this world is a double-edged sword - it really shouldn't be; it should have been the binding force that unites the species, protecting us from all threats". well, you sort of have an answer/problem in your own words: "all threats". literally "all" or just figuratively? let's say "all" means all external, why wouldn't "all" mean all external and all internal?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 6:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
and one last: "imagined need is destroying everything." whatever the right analogue to "zeitgeist" is, this is it. (this may be something as old as time, but i wasn't around when time began, so i couldn't say for sure.)
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 7:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
My apologies upfront if I'm cherry picking and exaggerating. I don't want to coming off as if I'm on the top, cause I'm not. And even if I was, on the top, the best, flawless - it would still be an offense.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.
If you're an atheist, you should still recognize certain truths. For me, the author (Paul) is telling us to be our own standard, to mind our own business no matter what. And for our own spiritual well-being; strive not for public approval, rather go the opposite direction.
People with success and clout may easily find themselves at a place where the high status hinder them from doing right. You know, if you got little to lose you might as well get it out, admit it. As opposed to being someone, which is being in situation where truth might have to take second priority. In my limited ways, I've been there: had to make a priority.
Jonny.
It's touching, some of the things you write. Almost as its conceivable that you have that spyware you introduced associated with Alone installed on my laptop. Either you see me or you are me, or visa versa. If I was you, I would like to know what's happening and who you (I) are. You aren't one of these "anonymous" as you have a real handle. Is it for trust? Are you buying trust so you can fuck over your victims more thoroughly? Because at large your words does not bear witness of good intentions, quite the contrary. You talk like someone who give what you yourself value little while pretending it's precious.
You're confusing. You seem to propose all things good and golden and sincerely hate all that is vicious and evil. Without being able to put forth a rationale, I suspect your moral to be selective and that your measuring rod vary.
You market yourself as sensitivity itself, burden by the world and its sins. I wonder how a wonderful person and mind as you fail to taste your own words. I wonder how you are needy? All man are needy you know, you just have to wait for the moment and it will appear. You don't say things flat out but it all smell sixty year old sweaty skirt, made in Germany.
Like how you flip the spyware thing to make it about technology, or that the victim should just make sure to have nothing to be exposed. It's about actions, what we do. And you are, I'm afraid, the kind of person that are too valuable. Despite your wonderful words. Words words words. I wonder why you do your spying. Is it because you don't trust people or merely for the fun of it?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 8:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is going to bore you, so be warned.
I'm with you in that it can be exiting to read a text "blindfolded" and that the interaction text/reader can spur interesting effects. And much more.
You're stating that a text _is_ independent of the author. What? Did you state that the paper and it's author is separate chunks of matter? No? Than, you and the world is wrong.
Obviously, a text is dependent on its culture (think language). Furthermore, we should take a step back and review what functionality language provide.
Language provide a medium for exchanging information. While there aren't clear cuts and sharp edges, thoughts exist and it is those who get to be represented on that paper. So, In my mind any functionally healthy reading involve knowledge of the texts culture and author, and the ultimate goal is to understand it. It's commonly referred to as meeting of minds, isn't it?
Told you, boring.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 1:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here we get into a post modern reading and a traditional authorial dominating reading, where the author is telling you something. Thucydides demonstrates this very well. In his 500 plus pages of the Peloponnesian War he only interjects his voice 5 times. So he is truly a post modern figure and to clarify a little, he is the writer of the first history book of facts - this excluded Plutarch and a very few others who interjected quite a lot. When you interpret a text and fill in with what you know about the author, you get sunk in the "swamp of interpretation" which can technically go on forever. Academics struggling for tenure do this as they must publish or perish so you will find them writing a different interpretation of a text hundreds of years old. This is what Jackson did with Thucydides, only he is a professor emeritus so he wasn't trying to prove anything, just meditating on an old and very interesting text for our times.A great blog post on this: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/03/lincoln-and-zero-dark-thirty-cracking.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 1:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Obviously you don't understand how you get spyware as opposed to a virus. Spyware is attached to bit.torrenting. When you illicitly download a movie or music it often has a poison pill attached that is called spyware. This is to punish you. A bit may contain a piece of it. Another bit another piece and when you open the code you will find a bunch of different spyware on your computer. And you can't really get it off and it really slows down your computer to have software to protect from it. The best way to not get spyware is to keep a good password on your ISP and keep changing it as breaking passwords are very easy. Not letting anyone else use your ISP. Say a friend comes to see you with their laptop and while there with you opens their laptop. If they have some your system, your wireless router and any computer on at that time will be infected. Trust me. I've been through this.I was just fortunate that three of my laptops weren't on but my desktop was infected and another very portable laptop.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 5:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, but that's not REAL. What Paul seems to be saying is that you should do all of that stuff whether or not you actually feel that stuff. I should mourn with those who mourn, well ideally, I would mourn with them because I actually feel pain. But notice how that's not actually in that quote. None of that is useful, because it's a game -- I PRETEND to feel sad because you are sad, I PRETEND to be happy because you are happy, I PRETEND that anything to do with you has triggered my emotional centers in any way whatsoever. So what exactly is different? If I don't act like I care because I actually don't, then that's real.
As to Blessing rather than cursing -- what if that's not what I really think of you? What if i think you're an ass, and nothing would make me happier than seeing you get what you have coming to you. It's another game, done more for "status effect" if you like, rather than because you actually feel that way. Again with the fakey nonsense. This sort of "being nice" is why so many problems remain unsolvable. we SAY we're not racist, we even take offense for others on hearing a racist comment, we say we don't want to discriminate. But it's mostly a lie, we still do things that are racist, we still don't really want to hang around with people of other races, we would still (in 2013) have a crisis if our kids brought home a mate of another race. Why? Because we've learned the fucking "blassing", or at least how to hide our ill will, even from ourselves. Ask any black man about whether racism is real, he'll tell you. But pay attention to your own reactions, you're trying to make it not you, not your country, not your people, etc. who are still doing the damage.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 1, 2013 8:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What you are describing in this comment is Simulated Reality, what we are now in. Reality is being stolen from us in homeopathic doses.The Map and the Territory to quote a book by Houellebecq on Borges. Soon it will be all map and no territory.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 2, 2013 7:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Baudrillard's whole point is that there never really was a "real". The Real was never true. By the way, it's very Baudrillardian of you to attribute the concept of the map and the territory to Houllebecq who got it from Borges who got it from Korzybski.
"Soon it will be all map and no territory."
Well, we are already living in the hyperreal, which is the map that references other maps...but, really, we have always lived that way. Making abstractions and referring to other abstractions. We never had access to the territory in the first place.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 2, 2013 2:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You say it so beautifully,and simply. Have not read Korzybski but now want to. Perhaps it is just now that it is being realized by some. So since we have created this world, we could have and can create a different one. But what to do with the one we have got? It can't be fixed, I don't think, before we totalize into Virtual Reality. What do you think?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 2, 2013 5:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Whoopdee fucking doo. Baudrillard was a hack and pretty much all of his predictions about the Cold War and post-Cold War politics turned out to be hilariously wrong.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 2, 2013 11:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Except that he didn't make predictions about the Cold War. UNless you have a specific link or reference to give me. I have all his books here, so I can look it up fast.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 3, 2013 8:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For there to be a map there must have orignially been a territory, even if it was only in the mind of the creator. I think it's probably best to try to get rid of the maps and find the land. If the thought didn't originate with you, it's the map. If it's something everybody thinks, it's probably wrong -- at least in the sense that it doesn't describe Earth, but Map. Try simply observing nature for a time, it doesn't have your maps, and it can point the way to Dryland (sorry for bringing up waterworld).
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 3, 2013 12:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Map and the Territory is a metaphor covering many many other objects. The real life of the celebrity and the celebrity seen as celebrity. One is the territory and the celbrity is the map. Or we can simplicy it some by using Baudrillard as an echo. The celebrity is a simulacrum in Simulated Reality. The celebrity is a copy of a copy without an original. Some celebrities are MORE REAL THAN REAL such as Gloria Swanson, Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo who had as she aged because it disturbed her fans so much. What they wre seeing was DEATH in hr aged face and body. She had been the fantasy of young and forever beauty, and the fantasy had to be protected. She was complicit by her hiding. Kristen and Rob are complicit by their "hiding" and refusing to talk. They prolong the mystery. If they con't, their careers will suffer as the fantasy cannot be maintained when you see them out grocery shopping, piling their kids in an SUV, etc. Little bits preserve the fantasy because they are stolen against their will.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 5, 2013 12:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There are about fifty bazillion ways to be feminist and as far as I'm concerned, you're one--you're just not a HuffPo feminist, and thank Ceiling Cat for that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 10, 2013 9:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A little late to the party, but I think he stopped extending the slavery/oppressor metaphor to feminism when he concentrated on women being responsible for not rising in solidarity against rapists, thus making the finishing question appear to be victim blaming. It took responsibility from individual action and extended the blame to gender issues (which is strangely also what he's arguing against?) Similarly, he also suggested that women wearing makeup is totally all women's cause, but that's ignoring that women do have to compete with each other over their looks all the time,in the home, in porn, at work, at school etc etc (perfect example that's trending now is Ambercrombiebitch or whatever.) While it's true some factors of gender based pay can be described on lack of negotiating, it fails to address this is very high positions -ceos etc. Most people are not competing for ceo jobs; it can be argued people are competing for jobs, period. The majority of gender based pay discrimination is adjusted for personal decisions, education, experience and work hours, leaving 7 out of 10 instances having no reasonable explanation other that tits-mcgee-ass-patting-workinthebackpizzaface gender based discrimination.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 2:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
in concept, not too controversial. but i suspect you have an idiosyncratic definition of "mothers".
Yes and No. Every mother induces love for them out of their child, do they not? I've never come across a girl or a mother who said, "To what end? Why would I need or want my child to love me?"
Everyone knows love is blind; if you think about it, to want your children to love you is to want them to be blind (i.e. your slave). Blinded by love, slaves die in their hundreds of millions in wars of attrition that punctuate the never-ending War being fought by needy humans against all of Humanity. They all want to be loved but have nothing but needy to offer in exchange. Cue endless games of deception and misrepresentation and illusory impressions.
Humans who don't love themselves (Selfishly) die for the most demented and farcical lies imaginable. At the crux of all the lies is the sociopathic delusion that every mother subscribes to (that their needs are more important than both their children and Humanity; ME ME ME). It's unbelievable that these Toddler whores actually imagine misogyny to be their good thing (and they truly do believe that).
I'm not against the concept of motherhood, on the contrary; I believe mothers should be more like mothers in our nearest cousin (the Bonobo monkeys). Bonobo monkey mothers dominate their Society, they control everything. They dominate the males, bullying them mercilessly with their biological obsession with sex. They love their children, who are made to be independent by the age of five.
Their children do not love them.
Who could need such a thing? Their children aren't supposed to protect them from harm. That's not natural.
Every insanity and all the misery in this world is a product of Self-less need >> the product of mothers who destroy their child's Self >> the product of girls who throw their minds away to focus on sex (cosmetics, beauty techniques, fashion) >> the product of misogyny >> the product of Yahweh Shibboleth's need for misery to "muster armies" (for the purpose of Numbers 31 leaching).
____________
In regards to threats, internal & external, the confusion there was the product of my inability to write. But empathy was supposed to protect us from all threats because it's the most Selfish of all emotions. It's the ultimate defence against unintentional (or intentional) pain. You can't hurt someone if you're hurting yourself (I know every Christian pro-Lifer is a sociopath; all they can feel is their own suffering so the suffering of others is desired by them).
With empathy, we'd be united and in Selfish pursuit of happiness / discovery / wonder, we would soar (in the absence of an external threat). Divided, we miserably conquered ourselves; reducing ourselves to needy liabilities with our demented obsession with needy lying. If your argument is that empathy failed to do what it was naturally selected for, I would say "No shit"; but it's an interesting line of thinking...
If your argument is that it was supposed to fail, or not supposed to perform that protective function (by virtue of the fact that it didn't), I would disagree. Some kind of corruption infected our species (head trauma resulting in insanity?) and for 5000 years since, the human species has been stranding ourselves like beached whales.
One of the most persistent theories about the cause of whale stranding is that something disrupts the whales’ navigation system, causing them to lose their bearings, stray into shallow water, and end up on the beach.
Maybe whale mothers are "purity"-obsessed misogynist liabilities as well.
The infernal need (all needy roads lead to misogynist mothers) of this miserable species is not sustainable. It's burning up the globe, literally. It's probably already too late.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 3:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.For me, the author (Paul) is telling us to be our own standard, to mind our own business no matter what.
For me, the author is telling Christians how to trade Emotional Currency like the filthy, dependency-manufacturing/sustaining leeches they are.
But then I'm brighter than you are; and I perceive a more real reality.
"Bless you!"
See how easy that was? Anyone can do it. Watch!
"Bless you! Bless me! Bless us all, everybody!
Any Toddler whore can do it. It's just (insane) words. But how valuable are they? How valuable are your feelings? It's filthy emotional bullshit that warrants termination of capacity to bless (or breathe).
"Rejoice with those who are happy!"
Share in the joy of others. Mimic their feelings to create a bond. Any Toddler whore of misogyny / sociopath can do that! Some are so good at it, you'd be forgiven for imagining they were contributing to the pleasant feelings.
"Mourn with those who mourn."
Share in the sadness of others. Mimic their feelings. Awwh. Provide comfort for the needy who've been made to be needy. Uh oh. That's a conflict-of-interest for mothers in the business of comforting / providing pain relief; their children have to be made to suffer before the mothers can perform a 'needed' role.
"Don't be proud"
That's easy when you've done nothing to be proud of. Telling someone who has done something worthy of pride that they shouldn't be proud is just bullshit reductive smear. Telling someone who has done something worthy of pride that you are proud of them is what mothers taking ownership of their slave children have been known to do.
"Be willing to [degrade people] before rewarding them with your association."
Like, for example, being charitable to the mothers of bastard sons borne out of wedlock.
Or making a lucky (needy) imbecile the happiest guy in the world! _____________________
The New Testament is nothing but a double-down on misogyny. It's endless tools to be used by girls who embrace misogyny (used against themselves, but Christian whores are stupid like that).
There's endless dependency-creation (Jesus didn't give cures or prevention to Humanity, he healed them with his secrets and only when they grovelled; Matthew 15:25-26 | Jesus didn't teach the masses to bake or fish, he gave them food and encouraged them to breed misery).
There's endless drilling of Emotional Currency (all that blessing and mourning and rejoicing and shared feelings Paul prattled about above. I may have said this already but the three rudest words in English are Sorry, Please and Thanks. But then you already knew that, didn't you Christian friend?
There's forgiving non-existent sins (the ultimate leech trick).
"Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?"
"No man, Lord."
"Neither do I condemn thee: go, and [compete with the Toddler whores of misogyny] no more."
I could go on and on...
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 8:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
it is vicitm blaming, but, I do think we need to get over the idea that it's a bad thing. What victim blaming means is that you have agency. You could have made a different choice, you didn't have to do what you did and thus have those consequences.
For example, think about how we talk about college rapes. We say "it's a rape culture". It just sort of happened that college students wanted to rape people. It's no one's fault, it's the rape culture. Which of course means two things: It's not the guy's fault he wants to rape you, and it's not the girls fault that she got raped. She was raped by the Borg of Rape Culture. No agency here, no responsibility on either side, you were raped by a culture. But, we don't talk about that with other crimes.
There's no "burglery culture", we don't talk like that because there's no denying that an individual is the thief, and an individual is the victim. And so we teach people how to avoid the problem. We teach people "don't steal" so they don't become thieves, and we teach homeowners to lock their doors and plant thornbushes around the windows. In the second case, there is agency, even for the victim -- but that's not a bad thing. What it says is "you don't have to be robbed", and more importantly it allows the wider society to pass on the facts of what stops a home break-in.
If we talked about home-break-ins like we talked about rape, the minute we pointed out that you posted all over facebook that you'd be gone for a month and didn't lock the front door, we'd be guilty of blaming the victim. Which isn't respect for the victim, but purposefully keeping future victims ignorant so as they are put in the same place. Plus, it implies that you have no power.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 2:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It would sure help if you would read some Foucault. In this case Discipline and Punish. Crimes and victims have a genealogy. Foucault spends an enormous amount of time digging in archives and presenting you with this info and still you go on as if it isn't out there.
When the king, the Sovereign was ruler, ANY crime was a crime against the sovereign. You got bashed in the head and maimed or killed, IT WAS THE SOVEREIGN that the crime had been committed against. So the punishment, or the discipline was commensurate with the fact that you did it against the Sovereign, so there was no victim. Are you following me so far?
The Constitution of the United States reversed that kind of thinking, and the crime had a criminal, and a justice system in place. A Foucauldian CUT you might say.
The "victim" seems to have only entered this Discourse rather recently and I suspect the intersection occurred when the lawyers got involved and asserted recompense for the "victim". Before if you drove carelessly and harmed someone that was a crime the state had statutes for and punishment was in place. But the harmed person had to handle their new problems themselves if they were alive to do so. So in fact, the "justice" system was still in the Discourse of the Sovereign. The driving infraction was against the state driving regulations, against the state code of laws, so the punishment was for violating state statutes, not for hurting someone or making restitution. The lawyers changed this and the word VICTIM became more and more used, and the crime was seen to have evolved to be against a person, a property belonging to a person, etc instead of the Sovereign/State so much. This is kind of where we are now. The Discourse is confabulated.
The Boston bombers were seen to have committed a crime against the State - i.e. the Sovereign - and the city of Boston was shut down, houses were searched without warrants, a wounded boy in a boat was shot multiple times when he was said to have had a gun but when there was no evidence of having a gun. 9000 paramilitary troops closed the city to capture one 19 year old boy running for his life who was not in any position to blow up New York City no matter what his previous plans and fantasies might have been.
Yet in Cleveland there were 3 young women/girls, locked in a dungeon cellar, raped and impregnated and fed McDonalds, unnoticed by their "observant" neighbors who all suddenly have something to say about this to keep themselves from being labeled dumb. A police force who decided they were dead even after the abductions were from the same neighborhood, and you have dumb piled on top of dumb all the way to the clouds.
BUT the very interesting thing is that the abductions ARE NOT labeled crimes against the State/ the Sovereign BUT FRAMED IN TERMS OF VICTIMS of kidnapping, so the crime is perceived and treated very differently from the Boston bombers.
So we have a two tiered system of crime now. Crimes against the Sovereign/State and crimes against victims within the identical Discourse of criminal activity. This probably has a great deal with the fact that the FBI was brought in in Boston and not in Cleveland. The fact that the victims were women and not men, and the fact that it was private property in which the crimes were taking place and not a publicly state sponsored tourist event like the Boston Marathon.
ONce you learn to think genealogically and begin to think that way primarily instead of endless interpretation, more meaning will be revealed to you that the Dominating Discourse hides from you. That is the purpose of the Dominating Discourse. TO DOMINATE and thus control the way you think about an occurrence. You are being played, no one is masterminding it, there is no Big Other doing it to you, no power structure demands you do it, but you do anyway just the way Pavlov's dog salivated upon hearing the bell. How does it feel to be not much more than a salivating dog responding to a ringing bell. That's what you think is freedom.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 3:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny: the author is telling Christians how to trade Emotional Currency like the filthy, dependency-manufacturing/sustaining leeches they are.But then I'm brighter than you are; and I perceive a more real reality.
East: It's another game, done more for "status effect" if you like, rather than because you actually feel that way. Again with the fakey nonsense. This sort of "being nice" is why so many problems remain unsolvable.
My apologies. It would seem you perceive, at least in this instance, a more real reality as well.
It's all about leeching. The leeches have created an alternate world that floats inside the real world we live in. Their world is an emotional world of manipulation and lies, words and feelings and a few of [your] favourite things.
Do you know how to solve a problem like Maria?
You put that sociopath whore down. When the children come running to her afraid of a routine meteorological event, she has a dilemma. Does she:
a) wipe their fear of thunder / pain at hearing it away, forever? All she'd have to do is educate them and they'd be unafraid.
b) start managing their emotional pain 'relief'?
She chose the latter to carve out a role for herself in the von Trapp family, as if she was a little Miss Ripley. She didn't actually provide anything of value; just pleasant feelings that were mostly contrived (like the above example). She'd position herself in situations where the children would be afraid she'd dob them in, and then she wouldn't (hijacking their trust). She was a Confidence trickster.
Just like most girls who want to raise children Right instead of work. Most mothers inflict pain onto their children before easing off the pain, and the children fall in love. It's Stockholm Syndrome. It's binds terrorist and hostage together via trauma and a siege mentality.
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens.
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens.
Brown paper packages tied up with strings.
These are a few of my favourite things...to manipulate emotion, especially the Xmas presents.
Mothers buy presents, obfuscate (lie about) the contents, and tell their children: "Wait."
No reason. Just wait. They say "Good things come to those who wait" and no one has ever made them show their working.
They will be busy little bees during the waiting. Chipping away. Scheming. Manipulating. Toddler plotting. Games.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 3:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
women do have to compete with each other over their looks all the time,in the home, in porn, at work, at school etc etc
Do women have to compete with each other over their looks?
Why don't men compete as fiercely?
Are you ready to accept that women embrace their mothers' misogyny and choose to become child molesters and slave owners?
Why do children have to love their mother?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 4:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Women have to compete on looks because of culture. we aren't allowed to be "smart" especially if we want a family. A woman who is too successful in a man's world, namely work, has a hard time in love because no man wants a woman who makes too much money.
So women who want love compete on looks.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 11, 2013 6:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Women have to compete on looks because of culture.
Yeah a misogynist culture that you all embrace, strictly self-regulate and perpetuate.
we aren't allowed to be "smart" especially if we want a family. A woman who is too successful in a man's world, namely work, has a hard time in love because no man wants a woman who makes too much money.
Demented Toddler lies. They rationalise all their self-degradation this way. They decide what they want to do and then say they're victims of male preference for [insert illogical, ludicrous, ridiculous and nonsensical inferiority here].
I've never heard of and cannot possibly fathom a situation where a guy has a problem with a girl's high income. It's just demented lies you tell yourselves.
So women who want love compete on looks.
You don't want to love. You need love because you're all obsessing over sex like Toddler whores instead of increasing the value of your minds.
"You don't want to love--your eternal and abnormal craving is to be loved. You aren't positive, you're negative. You absorb, absorb, as if you must fill yourself up with love, because you've got a shortage somewhere." (DH Lawrence)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 5:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny. The question you've been waiting to be asked: How DOES one eliminate neediness/percieved lack of something somewhere I dont know what where but something, SOMETHING
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 12:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What victim blaming means is that you have agency. You could have made a different choice, you didn't have to do what you did and thus have those consequences.For example, think about how we talk about college rapes. We say "it's a rape culture".
Women embracing misogyny don't want to go there. At the end of that discussion, there are biological realities that women are impossibly queer about discussing. They want the Right to maliciously lie to men without consequences; but they're clearly willing to tolerate a rape culture without the slightest indication that they're reconsidering their diabolical deceit.
I see opportunity for expansion of this culture, rapists? What do you say? As an academic experiment, it'd be good if you raping sons-of-bitches can establish exactly where Polite Society's tolerance level is set (for collateral rape). We clearly have substantial room to move because rape is out of control and they're not even remotely considering being honest.
I'm just joking, rapists. You imbecilic victims of your mothers' lies. They're not really worth raping, you know? Boy they wouldn't be pleased to hear me saying that about their impossibly rape-worthy value. They spend so much time advertising themselves as rape-worthy, one imagines they'll be furious; but it's all lies, rapist morons.
It's a fake commodity. Girls are obsessed with sex. It's pathetic, really. They're the true victims of their own hoarding. They just want to have their cake and to eat it as well. What Toddler wouldn't?
The day girls stop imagining misogyny to be their good thing, Humanity has a chance of emerging from the Dark Ages. But I think we're going the other way. Look at all the women who are being whores in this thread, dancing around the issue. No offence! ;)
But deceit is offensive and we live in the rudest (Polite) societies imaginable for a reason. This reason. We'll always have a rape culture because mothers can stop raping children whenever they please. Every child's will is being violently raped by reduced whores / mothers who Know Best how to make slave children suffer to please them.
"O yet a nobler task awaits thy hand for what can war but endless war still breed? till truth and right from violence be freed." - Milton
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 3:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny. The question you've been waiting to be asked: How DOES one eliminate neediness/percieved lack of something somewhere I dont know what where but something, SOMETHING
Missing or severely-eroded Self.
Lately, I'm inclined to suspect the answer might be you only get one shot with a human mind. I'm very disillusioned, presently; I'm so full of hypocrisies and contradictions myself. I've been spotting them everywhere; the human mind is just...it's infuriating that a human could even consider lying to a child and corrupting a pristine human mind. Humanity has been systemically disconnected one by one, pulled apart by love. We're so far beyond needing to be extinguished, I just don't know. The depravity...
Alone seems to have it worked out. If we use a more productive approach, and presume I'm wrong; then the Answer has to be reacquisition of Self (perhaps a lifelong struggle once it's been eroded).
How to reacquire Self?
The only inkling I have towards an Answer is to embrace truth with ferocity. If lies corrupt, truth should heal (theoretically). The problem is everything is so corrupted, our language, our perception, our ignorance - we only know what we've been shown, and everything after the first lie is tainted; with 5000 years of lies propping up everything we 'know' - we lie so much without even realising it.
The Buddha drilled Self and everything I've read that he says seems to be a pure truth. It's all just words though, at the end of the day; I dunno. I'm embarrassed to be a human, and morbidly ashamed to be a corrupted one. And then I look around and just want to scream. It's a species of the vilest vermin imaginable. I don't have the words for how sick the reality is; I'm almost certainly still blocking out degrees of the horror. But the rats are all sleazing off children they've lied to, the indecency is just unbelievable; the sheer gall of parents' and Society's fraudulent misrepresentation is mind-blowing. How dare they pitch themselves as someone children should look up to, or seek to impress? Respect? It's just outrageous.
This isn't much of an answer. I dunno. What do I know? I've been lied to by everyone, my entire life; the neediest and vilest lies coming from my closest friends. Everyone's lying. What's the point? Lying and fucking. Breeding and screaming. I challenge anyone to read the comments on a Jezebel or Feministing article without raging with homicidal fury. The horror of these lying vermin. They're going to have children. I don't have the words...
They don't value truth. What else can be said? Horror ensues.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 3:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As far as your quote from Milton you need to read a biography of Milton's daughter who took care of him and was treated miserably during his life and after his death. so much for what he said about violence. Easy to write, hard to live.
The "rape" thing was argued wonderfully in jan 2011 Atlantic Monthly using the college/university rape culture. It seems the feminists have told the young women that it is fine to have sex and repression was just made up by men and mothers. But young women do not all want to have sex as they want their good grades and their future careers too. So to hop into bed at a frat party is not really allowable in terms of their super ego. So what do they do to get laid? They get so drunk they can't stand up and then they are perceived as prey and the frat boys turn on to them because they are not going to have to deal with a brain to talk to. So to get laid the prescription is to get stinking drunk to give yourself the excuse. and then they very often get pushed into the bathroom, a room, some hallway and get raped. Fair game. But they have asked for it by doing what is perceived as sexy: getting drunk.Not cleavage, but drunk.
And keep in mind this is also a class thing. These are upwardly mobile university girls who do not appeal to the jocks in a frat house unless they are drunk. You know the OJ types. So it is helpful to have an understanding of Marx here.
It is not men or women, it is the young girl culture which transcends sex, age, and class.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It might help if you would stop idolizing alone. He/She is intelligent yes, but not on the cutting edge of thinking, still in the Dominating Discourse which forces one to ask the wrong questions. Just as your answer about the "self" is the wrong question and the wrong answer, since you cannot get a good answer from a poorly asked question.
Self and identity seem to be confabulated to me and I have not worked out the genealogy of self and when identity crossed the self. But Foucault has placed all this about 300 years ago when the self, the human, began to emerge as an object. Before that there was just the species of humanity, but not the human with his/her psychology, behavior, etc. One can read Julian Jaynes on the self in his The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind which is a startling reading of consciousness as is Nietzsche's.
The Consciousness of Self is a chapter in William James Principles of Psychology and if anyone is REALLY curious beyond a diletante's curiosity I suggest they read that chapter. It is online in PDF I believe. I just picked up a volume for 0.01 at Amazon plus shipping of course.
Alone has been intelligent and accessible enough to draw a diverse readership here, but although alone sounds very interesting alone is not a cutting edge thinker, writes in the Dominating Discourse and thus throws all ideas and questions into it to be discussed. The discussion is then framed in the Dominating Discourse so nothing can happen as the Discourse itself is NOT being questioned. All you can do is go around and around the merry-go-round trying to grab the gold ring of true meaning. The answer is you can't. The Dominating Discourse is exactly what it says it is. It is DOMINATING, controlling, authoritarian, and ultimately fascist in a political sense. You are stuck in it. And since I am old and all my education has been in it, my first reaction is almost always to get stuck in it and then have to dig my way out of it by thinking. I just did it again last night in my review of the movie The Host. I was wrong, but you can read all my errors here: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-host-terrible-review-of-one-trick.html?zx=a5f9756dca36be49 Now I have to do another one because my superego won't let me allow this judgement to stand without correction.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 12, 2013 4:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Neediness is a consequence of not having enough at the time it was really needed, in infancy. The mother who is not a "good enough" mother ignores the baby's needs, doesn't feed it when it is hungry, maybe waiting until the clock says it is time, doesn't change diapers so uncomfortable feelings persist, hunger may persist beyond tolerance levels, too much isolation, too much stimulation, etc.
Greed becomes unmangeable when infants's needs are distorted, persisting into adulthood. In adulthood enough is never enough and it is always too little too late. When this understanding becomes mainstream then children are going to be raised by the state to ensure better citizenship. Selfish mothers put themselves first and their infants and children behind their own wants, needs and desires. Why anyone has to even wonder about this is beyond my understanding.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 5:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It seems the feminists have told the young women that it is fine to have sex and repression was just made up by men and mothers. But young women do not all want to have sex as they want their good grades and their future careers too.
You can't have sex and get good grades? What is this nonsense?
I know exactly what this is about and you simply have to know as well; this is all defence of The Big Lie - the dumbest fucking lie ever bought wholesale by a species of imbeciles.
So to hop into bed at a frat party is not really allowable in terms of their super ego.
Super ego? What the...? No they just don't want to be honest. That's all this demented shit is; their mothers have corrupted them with shame. They're simultaneously embarrassed by their biological desire as well as corrupted with the misogynist conditioning that has made them little sleazy whores for as long as they can remember (probably from when their idiotic fathers became their first john). They are perpetuating misogyny because they don't want to give up their good thing (power over men).
So what do they do to get laid? They get so drunk they can't stand up and then they are perceived as prey and the frat boys turn on to them because they are not going to have to deal with a brain to talk to.
This ludicrous shit belongs on Feministing.com - firstly, the frat boys are the products of the misogynist Society they grew up in; i.e. they reflect their mothers' value system. Secondly, they're not afraid of girls with brains; there are no guys afraid of girls with brains. Enough with this illogical, nonsensical, combative drivel. How can a brain be feared unless it's being used as an offensive weapon to spew degrading smear and nauseating deceit? They don't fear brains, they despise what misogynist girls consider to be brains (a 'strong' girl / whore who reduces men into feeling shitty, degraded and manipulable). This bullshit is the source of all the combat.
Guys don't like it. No guy in the history of the species has cared to be smeared with the filthy transference. An honest brain cannot be feared. No girl who is honest could possibly be feared. You're representative of the corruption of an entire gender. It's not remotely hard to understand why a girl who doesn't reduce men with her filthy emotional poison will be well-received by guys (at least initially); even if she sets a precondition of rape.
Guys aren't fooled by a girl who gets blind drunk. They know she wants sex. That they then degrade her is the predictable product of women's unfathomably demented deceit. Their contempt and utter lack of respect for those girls is nothing but a reflection of their mothers' filthy lies and values.
So to get laid the prescription is to get stinking drunk to give yourself the excuse. and then they very often get pushed into the bathroom, a room, some hallway and get raped. Fair game. But they have asked for it by doing what is perceived as sexy: getting drunk.Not cleavage, but drunk.
No. You need to embrace truth.
The prescription to get laid is to be honest. They don't want to be honest, so they find this insane compromise which allows them to get laid and retain their Right to Lie.
They haven't asked for rape. They have demanded rape. I'm sick of this lying. It's outrageous because, once again, Toddler whores penalise decency and reward indecency. You have no idea how many decent guys suffer in existential horror and pain at perceiving what makes no sense when you don't understand it because let's face it; it's batshit insane. I was one of these guys. Getting rejected and smeared by girls who hated sex, only to be obliterated by the existential horror of watching them literally date their rapists.
What's a decent kid supposed to do? He either rapes or sleeps alone. I chose the latter for six years, until I got so disgusted I threw principles away and slept with everyone; and no, I did not need to rape. I just represented the non-existent ideal guy; straight but disinterested in cute girls (ridiculous), brutally cruel, contemptuous, degrading. It nearly killed me; not becoming that person but becoming a magnet for evil / needy.
But in the six years where I refused to accept the truth every boy instinctively knows is true, but wants to deny ("Treat them MEAN, Keep them Keen"); I saw a lot of otherwise decent lads get forced into becoming rapists. They were corrupted. Once the line is crossed...
You God Damned whores have no idea what you've done.
This Toddler evil has destroyed the entire world. Wanting to have your cake and eat it as well. Penalising decency, demanding evil and rewarding it once it has been induced.
ENOUGH. This demented lying needs to end. Decent guys are being shut out by this filthy whoredom. Girls wanting to hold onto this demented misogynist 'entitlement' has destroyed everything pure and decent and fun.
This insanity, that you're representing now, is and has been the only disturbance of the peace. Damn you all. You turned what should be Utopia into Hell.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 5:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just as your answer about the "self" is the wrong question and the wrong answer, since you cannot get a good answer from a poorly asked question.
No. You're wrong. It may be a shitty answer but "How to live a life without need?" is obviously the right question.
Self = living without need = happiness. Every human should be able to be happy with their own company. That humans are prevented from doing this and forced to live in misery is a product of need. I followed the need straight to leeches. Women who don't want to contribute or produce value; and their filthy priests who want to manage the suffering. Leeches want to provide comfort so they manufacture the pain.
All the problems in the world are manufactured; they are not needed. Toddler whores created this horrifying world of illusory need; they obliterate children's Self - they don't even hide it - mothers and religion go straight for the jugular of a child's Self because they want slaves who suffer.
The suffering of men and children pleases them. They can leech off that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 6:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Neediness is a consequence of not having enough at the time it was really needed, in infancy. The mother who is not a "good enough" mother ignores the baby's needs, doesn't feed it when it is hungry, maybe waiting until the clock says it is time, doesn't change diapers so uncomfortable feelings persist, hunger may persist beyond tolerance levels, too much isolation, too much stimulation, etc.
Correct.
You only need to look at a mother handling her child to perceive this truth; it's horrifying. The baby is communicating fairly loud and clear (silently) and the horror and confusion and terror in their little eyes; their mothers are Toddler whores, they can't hear a thing and they couldn't care less. Try interceding. I have. They'll scream.
"MY CHILD, GET YOUR OWN."
Their accessory, to be abused, tormented, lied to, mistreated, discarded, disposed of; they made it so it's Their Own human property. They'll do whatever they like to it. The law backs them up to the hilt.
Babies learn to speak out of desperation; I'm sure of it. The problem with communication is simply not at their end. Can you imagine how they must feel when they've learned a language from scratch, reducing themselves to her level to speak to her, only to discover their mother is insane? I know how they feel. They shut-down.
She doesn't say what she means and she doesn't mean what she says. She never explains, except to dribble bullshit lies. They lie to children for their sake. Hitting a child for honesty (as I have seen Polite Society's mothers do) after expressly warning the child not to lie when allegations that they have been rude (i.e. honest) have surfaced is just...oh I dunno...
What is this insanity? Schizophrenia? I'm not a doctor but unlike most, I know batshit when I see it.
Lie but don't lie but lie? Crack. Violence. Blood. Pain. Tears. Betrayal. Then the most horrifying of all. Love. They're batshit.
Greed becomes unmangeable when infants's needs are distorted, persisting into adulthood. In adulthood enough is never enough and it is always too little too late. When this understanding becomes mainstream then children are going to be raised by the state to ensure better citizenship.
Yes, they have to. It's hilarious because the state is a plantation reliant on the slave products of early childhood insult. But the abuse is producing worthless, broken slaves; no good for fodder, incapable of work. Autism, or ASD, is soaring. Science is confused; I'm not surprised. Their mothers have ASD.
Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior.
That describes most girls I speak to, and every other g/f I've had.
Selfish mothers put themselves first and their infants and children behind their own wants, needs and desires.
Now you are representing the corruption of both genders. There is nothing Selfish about their craven insanity. This is not acting in their Self's best interests.
They've been cut off from Humanity, disconnected. They perceive the world in purely exploitative terms. Use or Discard.
They don't know how to have fun. They cannot even take care of themselves. They're completely insane, running on impulse and feelings, rewriting history in real time. You think that's Selfish?
That's not Selfish.
No one has a clue about their own best interests because they have all been abused by their first contact with the species. Everyone perceives their abusive, combative mother in every other human; they come out from her possessive clutches kicking and screaming; fighting, combat, survival. War.
This is not the natural state of our species. For broken, needy, dependants; humans sure are demented when it comes to treating others. They have no Self. This is what happens when Self is dead. The shells lean on everyone and everything else.
In need, they became a virus that destroyed everything. Needy, combative, deceit-ridden Toddlers just don't realise it yet because nothing outside their little bubble universes of ME ME ME concerns them. They're not Selfish. What a ludicrous delusion of combative, using mothers; all the corruption of their perception and the way they view the world and other humans is illuminated by the way they've defined that single word.
They have no Self. They know nothing worth knowing. They just Know Best.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 6:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
that's just the system
http://pbfcomics.com/249
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 6:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The false self is a philosophical concept and has been around for a long time. As the zen master says to the potential student who wants to lose his ego, "First bring me an ego to lose."
We can for rough purposes equate ego with self without confusing anything too much. You are constantly railing against people who have no ego, no self. An infant does but it must be nurtured and reinforced. The only place I know that did this consistently and knew what the fuck they were doing was Emmi Pikler in Hungary who opened an orphanage after World War II as there were so many infants and young children with no adults or none in a position to care for them. Do not sit them up before they learn to sit up or else you deprive them of learning to sit up. same with walking. As a result they walked on all fours before they stood up. When they stood up they did not do that pot belly waddling you see in toddlers. Beautiful straight strong backs and unusual grace. They say you can spot an adult that was there as an infant. Playing on playground equipment was like watching baby gymnasts. Running down stone steps, etc. Eat when hungry, sleep when tired. all done in a communist country with state support. and if you had a baby you would kill to get her in there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2013 9:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We can for rough purposes equate ego with self without confusing anything too much. You are constantly railing against people who have no ego, no self.
Ugh. Ego has nothing to do with Self. No you don't understand.
ego (noun) - A person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance: "a boost to my ego".
With Self, your ego cannot be boosted or bruised. With Self, you have no ego. They've got nothing to do with each other.
if you had a baby you would kill to get her in there.
I was reading about the guy who first diagnosed autism in 1949. They say he's been discredited but they say lots of ridiculous things. He fingered refrigerator mother as the cause for autism. I think it's obvious that the rise is ASD is reflecting the decline in the sanity of girls (which I'm putting down to technological advances). I might just call them haters because they're not really girls (I'm referencing this comment). Once misogyny is sprayed at them, girls turn into insentient beings primarily consisting of carbon & lies.
If a guy wants kids but doesn't want them to be retarded by the demented lies of their antisocial mother, he has to wait until the next life.
No one can refute this. Deceit is the very definition of antisocial behaviour. Violence is antisocial. To need (to lean on others) is antisocial behaviour. All mothers are doing this.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 2:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your definition of "ego" is not as Freud, the first who analyzed and described it, has defined it. In fact Freud's is so deep and multi layered that few understand it. Impossible unless you go through your own layers. If you do it alone then you must do it through your own dreams. A simple pat def will not do. Not at all, not at all,
The self is different yes. But that's why I said for rough purposes. You don't read well jonny as you color everything you read with your rage that obliterates any fine nuances that might resonate for you. A pity.
You don't diagnose autism. You experience it. You resonate with it. You feel it. You vibrate with it and only then can you have even a small understanding of what it means to be autistic.
I suggest you read the master on this and that is Temple Grandin who herself is autistic and has contributed outrageously to aid the suffering of cattle being led to the slaughter. She knows she cannot stop it, so do it more humanely and without fear.
There are people who still do not understand that the way an animal is slaughtered can poison its body as it dies and thus poison its killers. Every serious deer hunter knows that the way you kill the deer affects the meat. Native Americans knew this and waited for the animal to "offer" itself, then they offered a prayer of thanks to the spirit of the animal. This is in the Symbolic Order of Seduction. Our meat processing plants to mass produce meat to feed as many as possible, as cheaply as possible, exist in the Order of Production. The Symbolic Order cannot be denied. It will have its say. It will have its revenge. We cannot deny it, rationalize it away, nor ever ignore it.
You are talking all the time about the raising of children in the Order of Production. Children can be raised in the Symbolic Order of Seduction. Other cultures have and are doing it. Just not us. Any mother who knows and tries is defeated in our culture. She has no chance. Nor does any father.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 14, 2013 3:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's an audio on Foucault's discussions on Truth, Discourse and the Self in English at Berkeley 1980-83. He also wrote the History of Sexuality vol I,II,III which are rather incredible. The entire ritual of homosexuality in Greece is in detail rather than the popular view that Greeks were homosexual, openly so, so what is wrong with it now. As Foucault discusses it was a long courtship of the boy and involved very explicit rituals of conduct, as the boy was to become a Greek citizen as an adult so there must never be any abuse or exploitation accompanying it. No less so than Courtly Love in the Middle Ages. Not exactly what modern gay men had in mind.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 4:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you happen to have an online copy of the book in English? I can't seem to find it anywhere (there seem to be only 2 such books available on amazon and they start at €250+). I am VERY interested in reading this book you've been mentioning for a while now.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 6:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dominique comes up every so often much cheaper. You might try Abe books and put in an order to be notified there. Or ebay.half.com It is the most incredible case study I ever read and I have read hundreds and hundreds.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 12:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
All this talk of self, self, self. The self is constructed THROUGH the Other, no other way. NO other way to access God and no other way to access Truth than through others. Socrates did not talk to himself; he walked in Athens and listened and spoke. He called himself a "midwife" of ideas; I think he thought that he could move people's vision closer to his beloved Forms this way. He certainly was not spending a lot of time worried about how his mother destroyed him as a toddler. Set down your Foucault for a while and pick up Levinas and Plato. Your life will improve.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 3:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not my mother destroyed me as a toddler person. Just Foucault.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 16, 2013 3:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And yes the self is constructed. Do you know anyone who has worked on a genealogy of the self?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 3:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your definition of "ego" is not as Freud, the first who analyzed and described it, has defined it.
It's not my definition. I pulled the Google definition. I know that the universal understanding of ego isn't remotely what I'm talking about so I couldn't care less about defining it. You're the one who conflated it with Self. Ego is a pathetic substitute for Self. Ego is dependent, variable. Self has no need.
Self is resolute once it is formed and my fear is that humans might only get one shot (during formative years). Children don't need mothers to form their Self; they just need the needy whores to get their slave-desiring insanity out of the equation. Children are made into slaves via textbook Stockholm Syndrome trauma (capture-bonding).
Hostages rendered powerless and helpless adopt their oppressor's value system. It's a brilliant survival mechanism; by identifying with the values of their oppressor, they find a way to adjust rather than endure torture. Fear is torture. Shame is torture. Early childhood is torture.
Once children have been tamed (broken-in), mothers don't need to torture them and the withdrawn malice is mistaken by the hostages for an act of kindness. Children fall in love with their abusive mothers but what is funny, haha; is how not one of you can give a reason for why children need to love their mothers. I've only asked the question dozens of times. You answer it by failing to answer it. How can you seriously babble on and on about abstracts and defer to babbling morons like Zizek when you cannot even give me an answer to a question this fundamental?
Why is there a need for children (or anyone) to love anyone but themselves?
Silence may be golden on Whore Island but I can't tell if y'all are stupid, insane or just plain rude.
_______________
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 8:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The self is different yes. But that's why I said for rough purposes. You don't read well jonny as you color everything you read with your rage that obliterates any fine nuances that might resonate for you.
No. My writing is inept but I read fine. There are no purposes for which ego can be confused with Self. You said:
We can for rough purposes equate ego with self without confusing anything too much. You are constantly railing against people who have no ego, no self.
No, we cannot.
No, I am not.
You're distracting from what has value by choosing to focus on what does not.
As for the emotional lens of your corrupted perception, they belong to you. You perceive rage? You would seek to impose your corrupted perception onto my emotional state? That's how emotional degradation 'works'.
To presume that the rage that you perceive in words must be mine instead of yours is infantile. Fix your glasses. You only see what you perceive. If you cannot understand that emotions are in your imagined perception, then you need to start from scratch. The expectation of this NPD-afflicted world is that everyone who is looking to sell commodities to the broken vassal slaves of capitalism must tailor their pitch to the uniquely corrupted emotional perspective of the target market. This is why my writing is inept; but I have nothing to sell.
You cannot sell truth. You cannot communicate truth to those who do not value it. I'm saying they need to be made to value truth or they need to be put down. No one has a right to be an imposition. The world is burning with the passion Toddler whores use to infect the minds of children and men to turn them into miserable slaves.
You don't diagnose autism. You experience it. You resonate with it. You feel it. You vibrate with it and only then can you have even a small understanding of what it means to be autistic.
I don't need to do any of that. Whore mothers need to stop needing to bring life into a world that will never have need for anything a whore of misogyny can produce. When their need to have children to validate their whoredom is terminated, the autism will evaporate. I'd bet my life on it.
I suggest you read the master on this and that is Temple Grandin who herself is autistic and has contributed outrageously to aid the suffering of cattle being led to the slaughter. She knows she cannot stop it, so do it more humanely and without fear.
I have no interest in her autism because the (in)capacity of humans to overcome the deficiencies imposed upon them is their concern. Do they have the intent and capacity to contribute value? That is all that matters. I do have interest in eliminating the inhumane cannibalistic horror and bloodlust of the human virus and I have no doubt her efforts are commendable. Everyone should be vegetarian but I am focusing on the roots of all evil and she is focusing on the poisoned leaves. No one is human if they cannot be humane. This is a sub-animal species and I'm telling you how humans are made to be inhumane.
Shame of human DNA.
Something is wanting and something must be done. I'm telling you what is wanting and I'm telling you what must be done. It won't be done but that doesn't make my answers incorrect. The source of all the horror is misogyny; lies, love and emotional slavery. I've seen no one else make logical arguments as honest as mine.
Buddha spoke the purest of truths if one's eyes are open but people need their eyelids torn open now (violently, if necessary). Tiqqun literally nailed everything about the Young-Girl (with perhaps only her molestation of offspring inadequately covered); but rather than accept the truth about the Young-Girl, you choose to focus on Tiqqun's concession that the sons of Young-Girls can often be imprinted with the Young-Girl image. You're an apologist for misogyny. What is the title of the paper?
Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl.
Your advocacy of misogynist values compromises the sum total of your life's work. You cannot have a combative mindframe or your perception is corrupted.
If you do not value truth, how can you expect to be credible?
How can you expect to learn anything that way?
How can you even want to be compromised?
There is not a single question you can ask me that I would flatly refuse to answer. Twice now you have become combative in lieu of answering questions this as simple and pure as: "Why can't a girl tell the truth at a frat-party if she wants sex? Her only options are limited to drunk rape or no sex? Really? Really...?"
I cannot really believe I am subjected to discourse as degrading as that exchange. At your age? Still a Toddler. Treat this as a (long overdue) wake up call. This is a world of emotional Toddlers who don't want to give up their petty little privileges and entitlements; the delusional rights which corrupted everything and destroyed the world. All Toddlers need to embrace truth. To not do so is to be insane.
This is unemotional logic which cannot be countered so emotionally-damaged cretins who don't value truth (but feel very strongly in favour of lies) will ignore every logical tenet or blabber their worthless idiotic feelings. How many of you just want slaves, I wonder?
As the universal enslavement of the entire race (by Their Own) grinds on towards M.A.D.
“We torture and kill two billion sentient living beings every week. 10,000 entire species are wiped out every year because of the actions of one, and we are now facing the sixth mass extinction in cosmological history. If any other organism did this, a biologist would consider them a virus.” - Former Citibank CEO Philip Wollen__________________________
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 10:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are talking all the time about the raising of children in the Order of Production. Children can be raised in the Symbolic Order of Seduction.
How is this relevant? You haven't made the case for why I could possibly care about a demented philosopher's labels when he cannot hold a torch to my reasoning. You seem to want to superimpose your preconceived ideas from corrupted sources onto pure truth; I don't like it because those unnecessary labels sound an awful lot like subtle spin. There's never been a need for euphemism.
Other cultures have and are doing it. Just not us. Any mother who knows and tries is defeated in our culture. She has no chance. Nor does any father.
Dovahkiin (who writes wonderful insight but still skirts around that all-encompassing issue; female biological desire for sex being many multiples of the limited capacity of men) already correctly dismissed this nonsense in her post about victim-blaming and rape culture. You should read her post again. She's right and you're wrong.
You stop being a victim when you create victims. It's the First Rule of Victims. The demons of misogyny need to be made accountable for their actions because there is no defence for the crimes they're committing under the protection of the plantation they simultaneously control and blame (as if anything justified their malice).
No one is forcing women to embrace misogyny. They choose that shit. They can stop the moment they start telling the truth.
No one is forcing women to have children. They choose that shit when they embrace Toddler whoredom (cosmetics, obsessing over beauty, body > mind).
No one is forcing women to abuse and molest and enslave their children with reversed love. They choose that shit.
And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot? You'd say what everybody says, "look wildman, don't ask me, that's just the Order of Production. Can't change it. Want to be degraded by a mindless, worthless, creepy, malicious Toddler whore who hates sex because she's 'pure' and sex is all she ever thinks about?"__________________________________
I'm beginning to notice a distinct pattern of deflection, Abbey; where you avoid what has value to concentrate on what does not.
I couldn't care less if Milton's daughter claimed she was long-suffering after his death (i.e. after she ostensibly suffered to deceive everyone whilst he was alive). I'm sick of amoral whores who don't value truth being permitted to claim what is patently illogical. Did he have a gun to her head? Why did she lie about her suffering? She may have suffered, she may have imagined reasons to lie about it; but to automatically presume she's capable of valuing truth when she herself is claiming to have lied for his entire life is a presumption that is just idiotic.
How do you know he even needed care? Maybe he was trying to pressure her to have agency, force her to fend for herself and she was a stubborn leech who was all like; "No Papa, I won't hear of it. You're in no state to care for yourself." And maybe he'd scream in fury at her imposition, making her burst into tears at his brutish insensitivity and inconsideration of her emotional feelings? What a bully!
How do you know she wasn't killing him with her needy? It happens all the time with leaching carers who aren't needed. They want to peddle their commodity of comfort (pain relief) so first they have to manufacture the pain. Literally no one can see the conflict-of-interest?
They want to peddle pain relief.
But they are the source of all the pain.
It's their passion. Their misery. Their reductive shame. Their fear. Their lies. Their need for love. Their Emotional Currency which has no value.
They have no value. All throughout (known) history, it's just non-stop leaching taking 'advantage' of Decency. It's their Value System.
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into [a whore's need for slaves]."
That you imagine the conduct of a person could influence the value of truth they wrote is proof that you do not value truth. You had a problem with the truth and went straight for character assassination. Here's the quote:
"O yet a nobler task awaits thy hand for what can war but endless war still breed? till truth and right from violence be freed." - Milton
Maybe he was talking to himself, bemoaning his own emotional degradation; his inherited volatile temper or propensity to violence? It's simply not relevant; he could have been Hitler (bankrolled by Western profiteers from WWI, including one Prescott Bush), Churchill (who was probably more of a sociopath than Hitler) or even God (the most evil sociopathic protagonist in literature); it wouldn't matter because truth is true.
You know who only ever speaks truth? The Devil. It's why he's "bad" and genocidal Power is "good". Mothers sell these corrupted values to children to destroy their minds. Their obsession with secrecy and privacy and their propensity for malice when you engage them illuminates the extent of their degradation.
They're just evil, little amoral demons making slaves out of humans. It's time for truth. You're on the wrong side of the line demarcating the boundaries of decency. Get back over the border, for your sake.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 1:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Raising children in within the Order of Production and the Order of the Symbolic is necessary in this culture. By Symbolic I mean what does the child want, what is the child communicating what they need, what is the child feeling, just being perceptively aware of the world from the child's POV. The Order of Production is also important: going to the grocery store, the auto chop, and all those day to day things. School too if you don't home school. It's the kind of thing a really good child therapist does when mom fucks it all up. One like Virginia Satir or Holt or Coles, hearing the language the child uses and what that means.
Your language for instance is all structured by opposites.You communicate completely in the Dialectic. This is the language of almost all of the Bible which you hate. It has taken over your mind and body. This is what the Bible is meant to do and why Nietzsche hates it. Not for what it says, but for its form which invades the mind like a virus. You have the virus.
It's useless for me to go any further with you until you examine the FORM you communicate in. This is not to say you have to go all around the bush to explain and deny, obfuscate and enlighten as most do here to camouflage what they say either. If I step into the Dialectic to communicate with you I enter that world and I don't want to be there. It is linear and endless and leads nowhere but to more thickets of confusion with less perceptive minds.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2013 1:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The above is by seymourblogger and this one too. I am on a strange computer and dont' want to fill in the blanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 22, 2013 10:25 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I still disagree on the whole order of symbols being necessary to training. What I think needs to happen is go back to the "real" to the Tao if you like. It's just not going to work to teach people how to be fake in a fake world. Not plausible, and it puts you more behind than you'd have been otherwise.
Imagine that someone dropped in from another planet, never heard of any of our stuff, never heard of any of our symbols and so on. Do you think they would work better on him or worse? If a Viking suddenly showed up on our shores (or a samurai, whatever) do you think he'd have nearly as much trouble figuring out what's going on? Do you think that our Viking is going to go to the White House to talk to "the power" or is he going to go to the Bank? Do you think he's going to be snowed by the notion of "women's lib" or "choosing whether or not to wear makeup?" It's impossible, because he hasn't been taught the "proper thinking" to make those so-called "choices" real choices. He's going to point out the obvious, every freaking time. He's going to tell women that he thinks it's weird that they equate "liberation" with the "right to get a job and work for other people". He's going to point out that for all of the "choice" it's not a choice, because everyone "just so happens" to choose makeup when they have non-manual-labor jobs. He's going to LOL at the very notion of being free to choose a career -- because it's simply a way to get people to not take the cash. After all "you love it". Yes you who spends 14 hour days decorating other people's homes. Add up your salary, divide by the hours, you're probably not doing nearly so well as you think. But, you love it.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 5:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This was a great article. I laughed and cried. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I was taken advantage of before sexual maturity which has different effects than being abused as an adult. Not better or worse, just different. I agree that mothers should teach their daughters to protect other women. Women are our own worst enemies! Fathers need to have more conversations with their sons about how to treat a passed out female (and male!) peer. Also, I normally go au natural and men and women equally comment on how tired I look.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 23, 2013 6:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes women are our enemies and we should not forget it. And include our mothers in that camp as possible sabotagers of us.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 8:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's useless for me to go any further with you until you examine the FORM you communicate in.
Why don't you just ignore the FORM I communicate in and simply answer my question/s?
No one is answering this question.
To fail to answer questions whilst maintaining that the FORM of communication isn't acceptable is rather transparent, no? It is the unwillingness of those who do not value truth to complain about the way the question was asked, the tone the question was asked in, the procedure followed, the appropriateness of the question, whether it's rude, or respectful, or dignified - blah blah blah - just answer the question or admit you do not value truth.
Nothing about this is remotely complex. All the problems beleaguering this miserable truth-hating species have their roots in the unwillingness of humans to give an answer to the below question.
Because you are all into slavery.
Why is there a need for children (or anyone) to love anyone but themselves?
I'll wait.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 5:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I do not wish to add my strength to the Dominating Discourse of the totalitarian states. To answer the content I have to go into that Discourse. Or give you a course in post modern philosophical thinking. That is not something I want to do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 5:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First we would need to discourse about the subject of TRUTH and that would take all day for me to explain to you. You use truth as an absolute. As Pilate said to Jesus, "Your truth and my truth are not the same." (Meaning they lie in different orders for both of them.)
Then we would have to go into Love. I already answered that a long time ago in the blog with John Holt in the Mackenzie Foy Lolita post.
This thing of LOVE of and by children is very new if one does a genealogy on love. If you want to discourse with me you are going to have to do some homework.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 8:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To answer the content I have to go into that Discourse. Or give you a course in post modern philosophical thinking.
That is one of the dumbest excuses for failing to answer a simple, innocuous, academic question I have ever heard in my life.
You don't have to go into anything but truth to answer a simple question. You don't have to give anyone a course in anything except decency and truth, taught to yourself.
There is no need for love's existence in the human species. It's supposed to be a mother's love for her young. That's it. There's no other love.
Why do children need to love anyone except themselves?
You can't answer the above question because you support slavery.
Why don't they just rise up?
Slaves don't know they're slaves. And slave-owners won't answer questions about love. They didn't rise up because they'd been made to love their owners. They were family.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 29, 2013 9:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First we would need to discourse about the subject of TRUTH and that would take all day for me to explain to you. You use truth as an absolute.
Truth is truth. An incomplete truth is a lie. Truth is an absolute; even uncertainties can be framed honestly as truth. The only people who don't believe in the value of truth are people who value variable answers to the same question, made up on the fly as if they were the sociopath from Nazareth.
Lying, by definition, is malicious. It's deceptive. It corrupts perception. Yours has been shaken pretty bad. Only truth can guide you home.
As Pilate said to Jesus, "Your truth and my truth are not the same." (Meaning they lie in different orders for both of them.)
Hah. Meaning: Jesus was a filthy sociopath who couldn't give a straight answer to a simple question. In reality, he'd be gutted for insolence.
Then we would have to go into Love. I already answered that a long time ago in the blog with John Holt in the Mackenzie Foy Lolita post.This thing of LOVE of and by children is very new if one does a genealogy on love. If you want to discourse with me you are going to have to do some homework.
No. There is nothing new about the corruption of love. The Yahweh religions are literally built on love for [other than Self]. I already informed you of the facts that obliterated your incorrect arguments about the genealogy of love. Why am I forced to repeat myself?
________________________________
You replied to abbeysbooks
And the manuscripts cobbled together into the Bible were written after 1200 AD?
Because if they were not, the 12th century legend is borrowing from the Bible; a book which drills love as an exploitative emotion used to manipulate others into dying for you. But don't take my word for it.
Exodus 15:3 Lord of War.
1 John 4:8 God is love.
Plus hundreds of other verses saying the same thing. But the love/hate dynamic is in the Ten Commandments; where Moses reveals "the Lord spake unto Moses" to tell us He is the Lord our God, we shall have no other gods before him (after is fine, just not before; he wants our cherry).
Exodus 20 (KJV) 5 ...for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Hate and love.
Love and War.
One is not possible without the other, when love has been corrupted. But these manuscripts are from thousands of years prior to 1200 AD so your genealogy for love is incomplete?
John 15:13-14 (KJV) 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
That's what love is used for. Right there. Exploitation.
2 weeks ago
911 call -- 'I've been kidnapped!' -- cops find 3 women missing for years
1 person liked this
______________________________
You need to explain why you're hanging onto lies in the face of irrefutable proof that love is a religious corruption of emotion, used for exploitation / slavery / war. I cannot keep repeating facts over and over whilst you ignore them; we'll be here for another 5000 years!
Want to work with me rather than be combative?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 1:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We have been through this before. I am not saying you are wrong. But what is the point of it? So I agree with you. How is that going to change anything or anyone's thinking? It's a mess of glued up ideology that can't be untangled. Do a genealogy on love and it becomes very clear. Yes Courtly Love first enters the western world in the 12th century and the western world only. Sex intersected with Catharism, a sect of the Roman church that the Church wished to abolish and purge it out so the Inquisition was started to achieve that end. Catharism held the tenet that the world was evil and that it was evil to bring children into this evil world. This meant that it was evil to consummate sex which might or would lead to procreation. So you see that this would lead to the extinction of the members of the Roman Church if it continued to expand its influence. So they had to be stopped, tortured, burned at the stake, and wiped out. They were too seductively powerful. And today still Catharism doesn't seem like such a bad way to go does it?
Perfect love does not require consummation. Unity in love with Death. That is passion love/Death as in Tristan and Iseult.
Jesus is a different story. And I am not going to go there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 2:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am just agreeing with you that love is a recent concept on the scene of history between humans. As God so loved the world is an abstract love, one that is not very applicable in any way to humans but it has been spun to apply to us. It is a language problem you are posing.
Certainly Jesus would be considered a sociopath if he were around today doing what he did then. But sociopath is a clinical term within the Order of Production. You can't take a modern clinical term like sociopath and apply it backwards in time to ta time that no longer exists in a world that no longer exists.
That is what the fucking mess of your rants is all about. You are completely illogical about categories and types. So it is pointless to argue with you until you straighten this out and clean house in your brain. You think like an idiot. That doesn't make you wrong about anything, just impervious to discussion. You sound like a Biblical prophet yourself. Your language is Biblical.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 3:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Truth is not an absolute. Too much Ayn Rand thinking. Absolutes are an attribute of the Dominating Discourse of classical Hegelian Dialectics.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 4:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Truth is not an absolute.
And you mean to say this is not just another variety of "Dominating Discourse"/"Discourse"/whatever ?(I have no idea hat these words mean but I'm assuming they mean the way questions are framed etc.) And on what basis do you place one form of discourse higher above another? 'cuz the current "Dominating Discourse" is just too mainstream?
Please elaborate.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 6:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I can't really sound bite the Dominating Discourse. For an entire book on its deconstruction read Foucault's The Order of Things. Just as at one time the use of leeches to heal a person was part of the medical Dominating Discourse is one example. When it was suggested doctors wash their hands before assisting in childbirth by Semmelweis they drove him out of the medical profession and he ended up in an asylum. Imagine a doctor having unclean hands. (Of course you know what was insinuated by unclean hands! LOL!)
The Dominating Discourse determines what can be said, who can say it, where they can say it, how it is to be said, why it is said,and when it can be said. It is authoritarian, and that is why it is named the Dominating Discourse. It is the Discourse of totalitarian regimes, dictatorships, etc. Poetry of course is not of this Discourse.
And yes, at any given time the Dominating Discourse is mainstream. The present one of Dialectical Hegelianism is of opposition. Who wears the dress better, X or Y? Who do you vote for X or Y? Everything is framed in terms of the binary opposition and one cannot get out of it by discussing and arguing within it. All jonny's rants are framed in terms of binary opPosites, stated or implied. If you rant about THE TRUTH then you also imply THE FALSE. It comprises a very ineffective way of communicating. I'm right, you're wrong. This is correct. That is false. And endless interpretation to prove your point ad infinitum because there can be no resolution, no finality, no end in sight. Global warming, yes or no. People know what is factual, but they don't believe it.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 6:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm sure that I miss out many of the arguments and questions set forth, so bear with me; please repeat.
Why is there a need for children (or anyone) to love anyone but themselves?
Essentially you're asking what ethics is. This has been studied extensively and you should check out the wikipedia article on meta-ethics. It's a limited subject as man hasn't come up with many alternatives on how to answer questions like yours.
My answer is that that the potential for love is hard coded in us. It's how we are created, thus it's biology. That being said, I don't like the form of your question. A individual does not need to love anyone: humans commit suicide.
This thing of LOVE of and by children is very new if one does a genealogy on love. If you want to discourse with me you are going to have to do some homework.
Enlighten me. Or please save your effort. There is nothing new under the sun. In our culture we have a telling story about an old man, Abraham and his much beloved son Isaac - a child they had longed for.
Why was Abraham considered just?
Because _despite_ how much he loved Isaac, he believed in God and loved him even more. Abraham didn't waiver. He was prepared to give something which probably meant more to him than his own life, the life of Isaac.
---------------------------
What's that nonsense about power?
It's ridicules how this topic seem to confuse people. Power is ultimately measured in capability to violence, secondly in amount of money.
Count tanks and military airplanes. Whoever got most of it, rules. More could be said but it's basically that easy.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 7:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Who wears the dress better, X or Y?
Your continuous pointing out that someone is in the DD seems to imply that anything being discussed in the DD is not worth discussing. Why? What makes this framework less valuable than any other? And also, what would be examples of other forms of discourse?
And what if you genuinely want others' opinion on who they think dressed better? Surely the thing to do would be to say X or Y, and not say "Sorry, I can't answer this, it falls under the DD, come back and ask me again after you've read this and that" like a retard. If one does not even engage in the DD, than what does one think? How does one communicate?
If the defining characteristic is that it's binary, what if you're comparing X,Y and Z? It stops being binary so it goes outside the DD?
And thanks for the suggestion, I will read Focault someday when my aversion to academic philosophy subsides.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 7:25 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If you want an example outside of the Discourse then I suggest Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrillard for starters.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 7:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As for power go to the man who spent his life on the subject. Foucault: power/knowledge is the name of that book.
Power and knowledge are a relation. They cannot be separated, They are a relation. Power is not something you wield, give, trade, lose, etc.It is always in relation to knowledge. Don't take my word for it, read Foucault. The way you have defined power is very compelling within the Discourse you describe it in. Who can say you are wrong? Not me.
But go into the folds of the Discourse with Foucault, and anyone who does can not come out of it the same. He is one of the cornerstones of what is now known as continental philosophy which already has replaced everything we spent our lives studying and getting degrees in as far as the human sciences are concerned. The radical theologists are the most radical thinkers around right now.Try reading John Caputo as you will like what he has to say because he doesn't believe all the mystery religious crap about Christianity. Nor is he confrontive.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 8:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What makes the framework of dominant discourse less valuable than any other?
Who wears the dress better, X or Y?
And what if you genuinely want others' opinion on who they think dressed better? Surely the thing to do would be to say X or Y, and not say "Sorry, I can't answer this, it falls under the DD, come back and ask me again after you've read this and that" like a retard. If one does not even engage in the DD, then what does one think? How does one communicate? And if your goal is not to communicate, then whay are you doing so?
If the defining characteristic is that it's binary, what if you're comparing X,Y and Z? It stops being binary so it goes outside the DD?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 6:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What makes the framework of dominant discourse less valuable than any other?
You began your post with this question. Your question is asked in the Dominent Discourse. It's not better it is just the Dominent one. You are in it and even tho we are talking about it you still can't see that you are in it. That's why it is Dominent.
A better question: How does the Dominent Discourse become Dominent? And that's in Foucault's The Order of Things. You see you speak, write and think in this Discourse. You cannot free yourself from it. If you cannot free yourself, then you cannot think freely. If you cannot think freely and if you do not even have the words for free, how can you be free?
Freeing yourself doesn't mean you cannot continue to converse in the Dominent Discourse when it is required of you, it just means you have another Discourse to move into. To go back and forth. It's just that I after awhile refuse to continue discoursing with someone of promise if they persist in trying to trap me in it when I have replied many many times, as I am doing with you now, that it is futile to do so. At least in this case here.
Instead of alone going on about make -up this post could have been framed in the work of Judith Butler in Gender Trouble. In socially constructed gender which is now pretty much accepted at more sophisticated academic levels. This is for the masses here. The concept of women in masquerade is relevant here. She may be socially constructed as masculine, but she masquerades as feminine in the way she dresses, makes up etc. This is Simulated Reality and the masks that affirm, deny, dissimulate, etc. All becomes very difficult and truth and false are no longer concepts we can use. We now have only credibility. As Brad Pitt says in Killing Me Softly that it does not matter whether the guy did the second robbery, the fact that he did and confessed to the first leaves the perception that he also did the second similar one. It's not what we do but what we are perceived has doing, as having done. All this is far more complex than arguing about make up issues, but it is a way the system keeps us busy arguing about trifles while a different war is being waged that we can't see. We are being distracted. It has a name. The name is DETERRENCE. Alone has fallen into the trap, performs it very well, and has no idea s/he is in the trap.
Now go read Foucault. I am not your private tutor.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 30, 2013 8:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Attn: Seymour.
Ref: Goodbye, you're Evil (and why).
The Dominating Discourse determines what can be said, who can say it, where they can say it, how it is to be said, why it is said,and when it can be said. It is authoritarian, and that is why it is named the Dominating Discourse. It is the Discourse of totalitarian regimes, dictatorships, etc.
That's the Dominating Discourse of Polite Society; the Discourse of Evil which has Dominated for 5000 years of lies. Power will tell you that I'm right, indirectly. Did Power publish Tiqqun or throw them in prison? Power does not fear your idiotic philosophers, it publishes them. Zizek cannot hold a candle to the Tiqqun writers; he's a babbling fool, batshit insane (already proved) because he doesn't value truth. You don't understand power because Foucault didn't have a clue. Power does not fear your new Discourse (same as the old Discourse). Foucault couldn't CUT a thing and neither will you. Power doesn't fear your new and improved lies. Power fears those who can free its slaves and until you stop valuing slavery, Power won't fear anything you do or say.
The Dominating Discourse belongs to Power. It's the Discourse of those who want the sociopathic right to change the answers, move the goalposts, renege on prior agreements; it's the Discourse of broken promises, retroactive terms, terrorist hijack, special exceptions, secret entitlements, creepy hereditary and property rights; it's the Discourse used to rationalise the need to backstab, betray, erode trust, corrupt and destroy everything that is logical, natural, pure, sane, fun and humane.
Lies are needed for Domination. Truth is not authoritarian, totalitarian, tyrannical; truth isn't valued by despots, dictators, politicians, priests, rabbis, imams, mothers and whores. Society's Discourse is one of consideration, compromise, tolerance, appeasement, malice forgiven, failure to disclose, offence avoidance, pleasant deceit, insulting courtesy, corrupted values, reversible answers, tenuous rulings, variable positions and judgements decreed, disapproval expressed, opinions babbled and assertions made without the ethical compulsion to show all working. No one wants to show their proof, include their reasoning or reveal their motives. No one has ever wanted to answer my questions.
At seven, I asked a good one; "Why doesn't God like girls who sing?" That question saved my ass (maybe literally), but it wasn't answered. A quarter century of repeating it failed to elicit an answer, so that's the Answer. Zero fucks given by an inhumane species because there is no truth in Society's Discourse so why would anyone care? There's no logic. No reason. No sense in discourse that isn't true and it's nonsense to pretend otherwise. "What is truth?"
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the (biological) truth. Every truth is an absolute, even without evidence. It's an absolute truth when it has been proved and until then, it is a lie if misrepresented. Truth is easy. "What is evil?" That's a good question. How would you define it?
The truth is that Evil has never perceived itself as evil; Evil almost always believes it is good. But Evil will be evil when it:
* does not value truth;
* does what it needs to do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 1:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There are many different Dominating Discourses at any given time.
Evil is I think best defined by Baudrillard in The Intelligence of Evil and by Ayn Rand in Toohey's speech in Fountainhead. Herzog's definition is excellent too. Hyper evil becomes obscenity. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2012/09/herzog-jungle-is-obscene-rob-pattinsons.html?zx=b7d558ef6b638522
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2013 8:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why is there a need for children (or anyone) to love anyone but themselves?Essentially you're asking what ethics is.
No.
I'm asking a simple question. It's not an ethical question. It's not a moral question either. It's not a legal question. It's not a confusing question. It's a question of need and motive and evil.
It's the question of slavery.
It's a limited subject as man hasn't come up with many alternatives on how to answer questions like yours.
To own, or not to own...slaves? That is the question.
Shall we ask Seymour's idiot philosophers? Shall we read the question through Hegel through Lacan through Foucault? Wait? Are we supposed to forget Foucault? Why would anyone ever should need to. Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Deleuze; effectively morons because love rots your mind. Nietzsche was like half-moron, half-genius but someone like Zizek is just dangerous (nothing he says is dangerous, he's Power's fool; but knowing him would be dangerous because he's a needy sociopath that doesn't value truth). That people could imagine someone this insane from moment to moment could have something of value to say is just...
Guardian: Slavoj Žižek: 'Humanity is OK, but 99% of people are boring idiots'
"...this is what I don't like about American society – I don't like this openness, like when you meet a guy for the first time, and he's starting to tell you about his sex life. I hate this, I hate this!"
I have to laugh at this, because Žižek brings up his sex life within moments of our first meeting. On the way up in the lift he volunteers that a former girlfriend used to ask him for what he called "consensual rape".
Yeah he's a real advanced thinker.
99% of people are (malicious) slaves broken with early childhood developmental / emotional disorders, like undiagnosed autism, undiagnosed PTSD and what's that one that makes them wear clothes?
Humans don't need alternatives to answering questions unless they're no longer humane. Humans deal exclusively in truth because anything else is batshit. Humanity can only exist in a world sane enough to value truth to the point of resting in peace anyone that needs malice.
That being said, I don't like the form of your question. A individual does not need to love anyone: humans commit suicide.
I don't like the FORM of a great many things, like 'women' (all of whom were killed by whores when they were still children). The question is for you to answer, not analyse. Feel free to concern yourself with FORM after you answer it.
When people love me, I put an ocean between us. I do not love anyone except for myself. I remember the day that happened. I became humane and I was no longer a slave to the Confidence game of public opinion / popularity / approval.
There is nothing new under the sun.
*facepalm*
That humans imagine they know all of knowledge amuses me when we wouldn't even know 1% of Knowledge on this planet alone. Here are some things this world really hasn't ever seen (at least in known history).
Freedom from imposition.
Freedom from fear.
Sanity.
Truth.
Self
Utopia.
Happiness.
How can you expect to know anything if you know nothing about life? How can people imagine there is value in abstract thought when they cannot even get the basic fundamentals right? If you need to hurt others with your existence, you are at Step 1. Take Seymour, for example. Forget Foucault? Forget everything you know and start from scratch. Until you no longer need to lie, you're at Step 1.
The determination to suffer in this world is terrifying. That people are so desperate to remain alive is terrifying. Hope may be the most evil sentiment of all (Nietzsche was right about that).
This world has the IQ to either live in Utopia or suffer as slaves before dying in misery or M.A.D.; and the EQ to pursue the latter.
There is a real problem with emotion in this world.
"We propose a different emotional education."
- Tiqqun
As opposed to love / slavery.
Why was Abraham considered just?Because _despite_ how much he loved Isaac, he believed in God and loved him even more.
lol. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that the demon Yahweh was God.
The guy speaking truth and blowing the whistle on "God's" criminal abuses and cover ups is a real monster. What a rapscallion! Exposing crime and telling the truth!
Foreign Policy: Vatican Leaks are the Work of the Devil
Power's lesson wasn't lost on you sycophants.
Abraham didn't waiver. He was prepared to give something which probably meant more to him than his own life, the life of Isaac.
lol. "probably"
This is a demonic species of child-molesting slaves, I swear at God.
---------------------------
It's ridiculous how this topic seem to confuse people. Power is ultimately measured in capability to violence, secondly in amount of money. Count tanks and military airplanes.
You know more about power than Seymour and Foucault but Power is about the manufacturing of need.
__________________________
There is no correlation between Power and Knowledge; Foucault didn't have a clue. There is a correlation between Power and withholding Knowledge; to manufacture Need. You cannot gain Power by gaining Knowledge. Foucault (ostensibly) had mountains of Knowledge and no standing army. The Buddha (legitimately) had mountains of Understanding and no standing army; the Buddha sought to empower you.
But you want power and that requires the withholding of Knowledge (deception). The CIA is very powerful; not because they have knowledge (they know nothing, really) but because they have comparative knowledge by preventing you from having that knowledge too. What the CIA knows may appear to be a lot but the truth is, they know only fractionally more than you. What the CIA doesn't know is what 100,000,000,000 humans would all know if they were Selfish instead of cannibalistic. To truly comprehend the horror, your mind may need a 'breakdown'.
By reducing humans to be the Selfless victims of your need to hijack their existence with your misery, you gain Power. Power is very needy. Leeches create Power via deception / withholding truth / emotional corruption / domestic terror campaigns. It's always a Protection racket (the clue is in the imposition). All power is a hijack and anyone who has power over another human is a terrorist and a liar.
Only slaves value Power; which is to say only slaves want slaves. When you're free, you cannot respect those who compel others to do what they do not want to do. Power is the ultimate whore value; to get power, you must create suffering. As your victims cry out in misery, you dangle the solution (relief from pain that you are inflicting; and you'll want to make the relief illusory or you'll lose power pretty quickly once the pain is relieved).
When you manufacture dependency, you have created need; those who imagine they need you are powerless within your grasp. They have no option but to trust you, to have faith in you, to depend upon and to rely on you. They have to believe you; they have no choice. Need is weakness entering the body. What doesn't kill you does not make you stronger; Nietzsche could be a real moron, at times. What doesn't kill you makes you traumatised. In trauma, you will choose to become a slave.
Power is love.
Love is pain.
Fear of pain is the name of the game.
The game is the game.
No one can win.
100 billion have lost, and counting....
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 6:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It is a cruel joke that I am the worst writer alive, because the logic is very solid. I think. I can't read my 'writing' either.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 1, 2013 7:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are correct in most of what you say. The Discourse you say it in is contaminated with useless concepts and ideas.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
June 20, 2013 7:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hello friend,
i really came hear to share my testimony on how i became an Illuminati member, through my friend. i was moving with my friend for more than 10 years and he have been getting rich everyday and even giving me money but he never told me the secret of his success until a day i was frustrated to let him know that he should help me also that was when he open up to me and tell me that he was a member of the Illuminati that he have been in the court for more than 10 years that his riches and protection came from this court.so i told him to let me be into the court but it not an easy task to be a member but i was finally initiated into the fatality of the Illuminati and i was confirm in there church. after a month of being a member of Illuminati i got promotion that same month in my working place and within a year i was promoted thrice in my working place to the extend of being a managing Director i never know how to thank this church of Illuminati and today am rich as my friend also, and also the one that surprise me most was that i got an accident with my new car and the car was right off but i still survive the accident and nothing happen to me i really thank you people Illuminati. so i just want to share to the world that this is real and it have help me and work for me so if you want to become a member i can lead you into the court of richness and you will never be poor again, know that it only a member in the Illuminati that can initiate you into the church of Illuminati they do not contact directly because they are fake Illuminati all over the world, this is my email [email protected] then i will tell you how to join,or speak to one of the member in USA +17575827869. thanks for wanting to join us.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
June 22, 2013 2:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I cannot for the life of me figure out how you can say such crazy shit. Even reading the comments section of any article on your own web site refutes most if it -- not in the sense that they are proving you wrong with well-crafted arguments. They are exhibitions of sexism, pretty mild sexism at that.
You know why nothing you say can get a woman to ask for money because the job is more important? Because they take job offers away from women who ask for more. This has been documented. What planet are you on? A woman behaves in a self-preserving way and that's bad? Christ.
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
June 22, 2013 2:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I cannot for the life of me figure out how you can say such crazy shit. Even reading the comments section of any article on your own web site refutes most if it -- not in the sense that they are proving you wrong with well-crafted arguments. They are exhibitions of sexism, pretty mild sexism at that.
You know why nothing you say can get a woman to ask for more money because the job is more important? Because they take job offers away from women who ask for more. This has been documented. What planet are you on? A woman behaves in a self-preserving way and that's bad? Christ.
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
June 28, 2013 9:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
sometimes you sound like margaret atwood. it makes me pretty hot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2013 10:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"The reason the makeup debate is insoluble is that it's not yours to solute. The choice to wear makeup is no choice at all, I know you think you came to it on your own but you live in America, you don't make free choices here, freedom is a brand. Makeup is an $8B/yr industry, that's face makeup alone, no way is it going to allow you to make a choice that doesn't involve a credit card, fine, if you don't like makeup here's a remover for $30, just remember that you're not doing it for men, you're doing it for yourself. "
If you "don't like makeup" you don't need to remove it for 30 bucks, you just don't buy it in the first place.
In my opinion all women (and men) need is clean hair, clean teeth and a clean body. Not even deodorant or shampoo or toothpaste because baking soda does the trick for all three.
We are doing so much damage to the planet with all these shampoo-pampoos and lipstick-smipsticks. What to speak of turning billionaires into trillionaires while we ourselves remain poor or middle class because we give all our money to them.
That being said there are some jobs that require women to wear makeup. Such as flight attendants. Its in the contract. And not just a dap of lip color either, you have to wear foundation which is very bad for the skin.
"Except that's not what the ad says. It says, quite clearly, that the highest validator of masculinity isn't the gun, it is the card. "
Yeah, your CREDIT card!
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
July 11, 2013 8:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, blame the messanger. Write better and paste the link please.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 16, 2013 1:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why did no one step in to yank Charles Saatchi's gloms off delicate Nigella's throat? People get into a trance when witnessing horrible things. I once read that if you are attacked or abused in front of a group of people, you need to scream out to one person, that's right, single someone out--ANYONE-- by yelling for example: "You! in the purple cardigan! HELP ME! Ring 911!" This is supposed to break the trance and get them to move to action.
I guess I would do the aerosol and lighter myself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 17, 2013 10:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hi everyone i will never forget the help the priest of JAYEMA temple render to me in my marital life. i have been married for 4 years now and my husband and i love each other very dearly . after 3 years of our marriage my husband suddenly change he was having an affair with a lady outside,i notice it then i was praying for divine intervention the thing became more serious i told my pastor about it we prayed but nothing happen. my husband just came home one day he pick up his things and left me and the kids to his mistress outside at this time i was confuse not knowing what to do again because i have lost my husband and my marriage too. i was just checking my mails in the office when i saw someone sharing her testimony on how the priest of JAYEMA temple help her out with her marital problems so i contacted the email of priest JAYEMA i told him my problem and i was told to be calm that i have come to the right place that i should fill some information concerning my self i did after 30 minus he called me again congratulating me that my problems will be solve within 48 hours. he told me what went wrong with my husband and how it happen.that they will restored my marriage but i will make a free donation to their JAYEMA home anything my heart told me. to my greatest surprise my husband came to my office begging me on his knees that i should find a place in my heart to forgive him i quickly ask him up that i have forgiven him.friends your case is not too hard why don't you give priest JAYEMA a try they work surprises because i know they will also bring back your husband. contact him via [email protected]
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 26, 2013 3:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's an interesting blog post. A bit heavy on the victim blaming for my taste (this bit in particular: "Every stupid parent teaches their girls not to get raped, duh, but have any mothers spent any time indoctrinating their daughters what to do if another woman is being raped?") Particularly since he just got done showing why people don't rise against the system is that the system has taught them not to. He's then asking the victims of the system (in this case mothers) to buck the system and not teach it?
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
July 27, 2013 3:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
finally, someone calls out the self-righteous feminist agenda for what it really is. Feminism has expounded too much effort taking down politicians/ celebrities/ corporations for supposed discrimination, but refuses to examine how the oppressive social pressures on women actually come about. The possibility that women's behaviour and innate beliefs (I daresay some women still subconsciously buy into the patriarchal worldview) may have a part to contribute to sexism isn't even being discussed at all, which is frankly a shame.
Especially since this generation sees itself as the turning point in gender equality, its time to shut down the rhetoric and return to promoting a non-gendered worldview instead of this female-male mudslinging bullshit.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
July 29, 2013 3:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
WELCOME TO THE GREAT TEMPLE OF ILLUMINATI WORLDRICHS. Are you a business
man, politician, musical, stundent and you want to be rich, powerful and be
famous in life. You can achieve your dreams by beening a member of the
illuminati. With this all your dreams and heart desire can be fully
accomplish, if you really want to be a member of the great illuminati then
you can contact Mr FRANK on +2348121948675
AND
[email protected]
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 29, 2013 4:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the problem runs more in not demanding anything of the supposed victims themselves. Which is how you remain a victim -- you think you have nothing to do about the situation so you run to the nearest authority to solve it for you. A person who won't even try to fix things him/her self is a victim forever because the only thing that stops victimization is that the victim no longer appears to be weak. A person begging for more "protection" is a person who will be picked on an spit on by those who have and use power. Alphas are not going to respect the guy hiding behind other people. So when victim groups go to some authority to make them equal, they don't get equality, they signal not being equal.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
July 30, 2013 4:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, great analysis. We have remarkably similar POV's, but major themes of self-defeatedness and extreme passive-aggressiveness (or is that just unwillingness to confront issues head on)?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 4, 2013 12:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He's then asking the victims of the system (in this case mothers) to buck the system and not teach it?
Mothers are the victims, you say? Victims of the Matrix of Imposition? Victims of the institution of slavery? Victims of exploitation and manipulation?
All humans are victims so that is correct; mothers are the victims of evil. But there is only one source of 'need' for violence and deceit. It's not biological.
________________________
Mom: "Please me."
Kid: "Why can't everyone just please themselves?"
Mom: "But honey, you should want to please me. After all, without me you wouldn't be here. I gave you life!"
Kid: "Yeah about that. I'm should sue for damages. And you didn't give me anything; I never asked for this bullshit. Show me where I agreed to come here and live like this. You're a kidnapper. Please yourself. Get off my back already."
Mom: "We're gonna need some privacy."
*draws blinds*
....
*opens blinds*
Mom: "Please me?"
Kid: "Mommy, I LOVE you. Yes Mommy. Anything for a kind word from my Mother, who I love. Mommy, you do so much for me. You suffer so much for me. When will I ever get a chance to repay you?"
Mom: "Awwh my little pumpkin, I love you too. And don't you worry, mommies always have need for good, brave boys who love their mother and would do anything to protect them from the big bad world of mean words."
____________________
Do you know what kind of evil you have to do to a human before they'll die for a kind word from you? I know. Your memory has wiped the trauma from your mind but on some subconscious level, you know the evil too.
Evil did it to you in private. You screamed for Humanity to save you from the torture, but people just turned their heads the way I turned mine this morning as a child screaming down the hall curled my blood. Any other human, you'd bash the door down or call the police or get help to rescue the victim; but children, you know...
That's what children are for. Leeches need suffering or they will not be pleased. Mothers are the victims of their evil, that is correct. But what is also correct is that all the evil is drawn from one (1) well of limitless, shameful need.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
August 4, 2013 7:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You motherfuckers are crazy. "Psychiatry's blog what do you expect," no, if some of you people were in power you'd install a new Reich. God damn.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
August 7, 2013 3:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow. Just wow.
This is the first article I've read of yours and I'm blown away.
I can't get over how brilliantly-written it was and how interesting the content was.
Thank you, I'll be reading more from now on.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
August 30, 2013 4:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if ads
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
September 22, 2013 10:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your ability to recognise and react, results in personal and mutual success.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2013 12:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why does it seem that, irrespective of how neutral a comment is, it still receives half a dozen or so negative votes? Whether the comment agrees OR disagrees with Alone, it might receive a higher or lower ratio of negative to positive votes. Is this blog read only by indecisive or pugnacious folk, rating a comment based almost solely upon what votes it already has?
Someone explain this apparent madness!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 27, 2013 2:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
well many of them are very horrible looking without it.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
October 6, 2013 11:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It is all about competition which is awful. Being naturally beautiful has opened doors to me that I realize should have been closed. I never used my looks against anyone and I do not wear makeup and have gained about forty pounds over the years, but I am tall and I am 53 for goodness sakes. I was married since I was 19 and my husband left me for an illusion of something better and I drop
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
October 6, 2013 11:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
ped out of the race to find another partner. My heart has been stomped on and I just don't need anyone's affirmation of who I am. I like myself and trust my judgement and if I am going to a special meeting I can dress extremely well and be satisfied with how I look for the most part. Women haven't even had the vote for 100 years and we are still locked into the idea that we need a guy to take care of us. I can take care of myself, and when I was awarded lifetime alimony I went to my attorney and told him I didn't want it. Then I kept it because my husband's girlfriend wrote to our judge and it ticked me off. I am going to use the money for our daughter to go to law school. Fuck them both.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
October 6, 2013 2:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Women haven't even had the vote for 100 years and we are still locked into the idea that we need a guy to take care of us.
The failure of the feminist movement to protect girls from their mothers' slut-shaming and malicious lies of entitlement about what they deserve (for contributing nothing but needless suffering) fairly warrants bringing back the guillotine to clean house.
All feminists seem to care about is advertising the non-existent value of rape. It's a bit like their advertised concern that men want to look up their skirts. They just throw their speculation out there, based on nothing but they get so emotional about it one wonders why they can't just wear pants.
About your husband though, you do know that love, monogamy and marriage are all religion's evil constructs of slavery, yes? Women can take care of themselves. They don't need to obligate men.
Raw Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl (Tiqqun)"The Young-Girl is never worried about herself, just about her value. Thus, when she encounters hatred, she is seized by doubt: has her popularity rating/stock quotation gone down?"
"Whatever the Young-Girl gives that is incalculable, she counts anyway."
"The revolting thing isn't that the Young-Girl is a whore, but that she refuses to see herself as one."
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
October 6, 2013 2:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
goo.gl/wOd87F
Rape Example 1 - if I'd sleep with the girl on the right but not on the left, how would it not be rape?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 6, 2013 2:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
goo.gl/6f93SJ
Rape Example 2 - if a guy sleeps with the girl on the right, how would it not be rape?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 7, 2013 1:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's pretty simple. The system allows him to continue on of course. He's functionally irrelevant to the vast vast majority of the world.
That being said, this is the best article I've ever read here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 7, 2013 6:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hello am Jennifer from UK I want to thank Dr Osaze for what he has done for me at first I taught he was scam but until I just decided to follow my mind.i told him that my ex lover which I loved with all my heart left me for another all Dr Osaze did was to laugh and said he will be back to me in 3days time I taught he was lying on the 3rd day my ex called me and said he want to see me, i was shocked then he came over to my place and started begging that he was bewitched, immediately I forgives him and now we are back and he his really madly in love with me.All thanks to Dr Osaze he indeed wonderful incise you want to contact him here his is private mail:[email protected]
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
October 8, 2013 11:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Preparing to Rape Men."
Apparently.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions. The act is known in Tennessee and California as rape by fraud.
This is rape: goo.gl/6f93SJ
This is rape: goo.gl/wOd87F
To women who wear makeup, have you ever not raped a man? If you need deception to gain consent that would not have been granted otherwise, that is rape.
"But the men we want to sleep with won't sleep with us if we're honest..!"
The answer is not to rape them...!? Stop raping men. No means No (at least when I say it).
After a lifetime of being raped by girls who simply weren't attractive enough to interest me but who spiked my drinks, created illusions of deceit, maliciously took advantage of my decency and incapacity to see their need to rape coming, I've had enough.
The next girl who rapes me with her lies is going to DIE...
...a long time after I will. Because on this planet, sex-obsessed demons rape men before seeking revenge on them for their disinclination to take care of them or give them money to rape them again and again, literally, emotionally, financially. You know, once they'd already been raped.
"I'm the luckiest guy in the world." - men with a smug demon nearby
Wed-lock.
Hint: The lock = slavery.
"look wildwoman, don't ask me, that's just the system. Can't change it. Want to rape a stupid dude?"
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
October 14, 2013 3:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It has just occurred to me that Alone's critique of Djhango Unchained can be applied to just about every historic atrocity that people over emphasize the awfulness of, regardless of the fact that other humans enabled such a thing to occur and if humans then did it what is the real difference between humans 500 years ago and now minus the few extra inches in height, bigger average bust size, and few IQ points we have gained. This was spurred by the various flaming of Christopher Columbus that has been happening lately.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 14, 2013 3:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So let me get this straight Jonny, you don't take any responsibility for your trysts with these women at all? It couldn't possibly be your fault you were tricked....not once...not twice....but several times. Furthermore you think your situation as a man is not only equal with women's (last time you were worried to walk down dark street at night?) you think your situation is WORSE than theirs? Understand that regardless of what has happened between you and the various succubi you claim to have encountered the quote from another of these articles holds very true.
From "The Second Story of Echo & Narcissus" by TLP
"Echo, like all women, offered her man a peek inside his soul, all he had to do look: What kind of a man am I, that attracts this kind of woman? What kind of a man am I that attracts the kind of woman who only likes me for how I look? Despite how I treat her? What kind of a man am I that only attracts the kind of women who like me for X? Is it because there is nothing else of value inside me except X? But he was never taught to ask questions like this. In fact, he was taught never to ask questions like that. What kind of a man attracts a woman who can only echo him?"
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
November 3, 2013 9:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Excellent read, couldn't agree more.
And peeps, stop rationalizing away your mediocrity and try to say smtng without insulting the author! These are the facts
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
November 3, 2013 9:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Excellent read, couldn't agree more.
And peeps, stop rationalizing away your mediocrity and try to say smtng without insulting the author! These are the facts
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
November 3, 2013 9:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Excellent read, couldn't agree more.
And peeps, stop rationalizing away your mediocrity and try to say smtng without insulting the author! These are the facts
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
November 3, 2013 7:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's pretty much the lesson of history. But for the fact that you were born in a different time or place you would have been doing whatever atrocity the locals thought was normal. Had you been born in India, you might have pushed the wife of a leader onto a funeral pyre to be burned alive. Had you been born a Roman, you would have driven nails through a man's hands and feet, no matter how much he begged for mercy. You would have thought nothing of paying a few denarii to see men forced to fight to the death. Had you been born in the antebellum south, you would have thought nothing of buying a husband or a wife and splitting up a family. Go anywhere at any time, and you'd do the same stupid, cruel things that the Matrix of the time told you to do, and you'd have argued that the way it was is the moral and civilized way to do it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
November 4, 2013 1:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There are no girls in my league. There never really has been. They are the one and only reason I ever needed to lie and I've never lied with malice; merely when compelled by those who penalise truth and honesty.
I take no responsibility whatsoever for being raped. You're just victim-blaming. All the honest girls are dead. There are no women that echo me. There isn't a girl telling the truth about female desire and slut-shaming on this planet. They just won't give it up.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
November 23, 2013 5:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"...the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life. His powers were on loan, he wasn't even a vassal, he was a tool."
Alone, did you see Almost Human? They made the robot a black guy, as if to shout "this isn't the type of racism we're talking about!" It was terrible.
I'd love to see you break it down, I'm sure you would catch alot more of the hidden messaging than I did.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 6, 2013 1:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You nail so many points that most humans absolutely can't STAND to acknowledge, never mind actually talk about, and thank God you're a male, because they might even listen to what you're saying. And so it frustrates me, personally, that your apparent personal bias and assumptions are also so fully expressed along with your insights about human behavior and social dynamics. Luckily I'm one of those people who gets that everyone has a personally biased POV based on all kinds of factors, so I can applaud your insight and the courage (yes courage) to post, and step over your apparent bias (that's a test, you're familiar with passive aggressive tests, aren't you? :) ) Please keep up the writing, it all needs desperately to be pulled into the light and exposed. And the fact is that personal bias, the denial of one's own and the denial of the impact of one's own is one of the biggest factors in many of the topics you post about.
"With every narcissistic injury is a reflexive urge towards violence." Well said.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 11, 2013 8:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Ugh what a load of retarded tripe. The author sounds like a dumbass who has been rejected by too many women and is bitter over it. Get over yourself.
Score: -9 (9 votes cast)
December 20, 2013 1:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Join illuminati - Freemason online today, to meet your demand and acquire wealth, power, protection, influence and a better paying job etc. Also get instant sum of $500,000.00 dollars with a free home anywhere you choose to live in the world $2,500.00 dollars monthly as a salary and other benefit attached. if you are interested contact us now via email: [email protected] or call +2348137838605 for assistance.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 23, 2013 8:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hello friends,i really came hear to share my testimony on how i became an Illuminati member, through my friend. i was moving with my friend for more than 5 years and he have been getting rich everyday and even giving me money but he never told me the secret of his success until a day i was frustrated to let him know that he should help me.that was when he open up to me and tell me that he was a member of the Illuminati that he have been in the court for more than 8 years that his riches and protection came from this court.so i told him to let me be into the court but it not an easy task to be a member but i was finally initiated into the fatality of the Illuminati and i was confirm in there church. after a month of being a member of Illuminati i got promotion that same month in my working place and within a year i was promoted thrice in my working place to the extend of being a managing Director. i never know how to thank this church of Illuminati and today am rich as my friend also, i really thank you people Illuminati. so i just want to share to the world that this is real and it have help me and work for me so if you want to become a member i can lead you into the court of richness and protection and even famous and you will never be poor again, know that it only a member in the Illuminati that can initiate you into the church of Illuminati they do not contact directly that the rules that guide the church. because they are fake Illuminati all over the world, this is my email [email protected]
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 18, 2014 2:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dr. Lee just wanted to update you, that Luis came to my work today, he was amazing towards me, just wanted to hold me and kiss me, I don't know what you've done, but that was absolutely amazing, he was all over me, I want to thank you so much for that, you are my angel send from God. I don't know what to say, that was amazing, I have never seen him like that. He just wanted to hold me and kiss me. I thank God everyday for knowing you and having you in my life. I love you, you are my angel.... If you need his assistance in life contact him: [email protected]
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 30, 2014 4:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I doubt that anyone will still read this as this thread's been abandoned for some time, but still. I really like your blog, TLP, I'm getting the hang of your style and reasoning after reading a few posts of yours. Profound.
Two girls that I know and study with are currently interning with NGO's. I met one the other day and she was talking about 'work', 'having to go to work in a bit', so I asked if she had a job. 'Nah, it's an intership actually.'
The other girl was talking about it in similar terms. Judging by their stories, they work their asses of and get paid jack shit, and talk about it in terms of 'having a job' (as in, a career). It's not. An internship is something different than a bonafide, genuine paid job, but yet the trappings of power, saying how you 'had a busy week at work' is a powerful thing apparently.
I profoundly recognize the trappings thing and the external validation. My university is of a bit of a right-wing, conservative streak when compared to others in the Netherlands. I was a board member in a student association together with 5 girls (all wonderful people, no jokes). But a dominant few cooked up the idea we should make 'professionalism' a goal for ourselves throughout the year. So we suited up, went to classy parties, networking and all. To me it was a work, I mean I do suit up when it suits me for the opportunity, I network where ever and whenever I need to, but it's merely instrumental to me. Two girls in my crew seemed to mix up the trappings with actual power, and professional aura with skill and ambition.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 21, 2014 9:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Beauty ultimately depends on good health. Following the procedure outlined in fat loss factor program of Dr Charles would go a long way in keeping you slim and trim.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 3, 2014 10:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I just wanted to say, I can't remember the last time wore makeup. I have always considered makeup optional. But that's just me. Some people probably consider me a freak.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 18, 2014 9:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
First Question: Why didn't slaves rise up? Answer: There were undoubtedly many individual cases of rebellion, the most famous being Nat Turner's revolt. It's just that five or ten people armed with knives aren't going to go very far in a world run by white people with guns and a strong desire to not get their fingernails dirty. Of course, these small uprisings were not recorded in detail, mostly because it was probably just a big laugh to all the individual slave holders who could prevent other uprisings by punishing the mutineers with anything from whipping to rape/raping their wives or children, to removing appendages, to drowning, to etcetera, etcetera...are you getting my point? A man or woman contemplating rebellion had a whole lot more to consider than just whether they did not appreciate the accommodations or the work schedule. They had families and a need to keep themselves from horrendous bodily and mental harm. And nobody wanted to admit that black people had a soul capable of wanting more out of life. That was part of the justification that slave owners gave for maintaining the practice- that the slaves were unable to think or act for themselves. I think you're assumption is making an ass out of you here.
Secondly, as far as power migrating out of institutions where women make inroads, such as the legislature, your assumption that power ever removes itself completely from any body with the ability to create societal change is faulty. The distribution of power shifts frequently between government/economic organs, due to the relevance of any one body to the questions that are important at that time and the efficacy of the agency in addressing those questions. Currently, the legislature of the land is gridlocked by conservative ideologues who do not give a shit what is good for the country as a whole, only to keeping their place in the power structure. The blind martinets who are dancing in step with these people are keeping the system from effective operation. Instead of working earnestly to solve problems, they are throwing up roadblock after roadblock to any attempts to do so by people who actually have ideas. By grid-locking the system, they have made the legislature irrelevant. That is why power is moving away from Congress, not because after decades of fighting the power structure women are finally gaining positions in agencies that have the ability to change the world of which they are a part. When the legislature cleans up its act and starts working for the common good and not clinging to a pointless lockstep model that works for no one except themselves, they will become relevant to the whole population of the country again. And for now, believe me, soooooooo many women are glad that they have female representatives to fight the attack on the right to obtain regular birth control, and the morning-after-pill ESPECIALLY in case of rape (not even considering abortion). Although TLP probably does not consider that a factor in the power structure, for women it is and always will be up at the top of the list of what we need to have any control over our course in life. Until we can castrate all the men, I mean. (That is a joke, really, feminists are not after men's rights at all, we just want to have a place at the table instead of under it sucking all the dicks).
What else do I want to say...hmmmm...TLP's post was just such a wide slinging of uninformed shit it is hard to keep it all straight since it contained very little real information...well, I'll just leave it at that for now, reserving the right to say more...Oh, I know- I was the victim of rape and I can tell you right now that women don't find it funny under any circumstances. They may not do anything at the time because they are afraid they will be pulled in on the action, because most women are aware they are only one pair of underwear away from being made into a sexual object by an unruly boy. I cannot tell you the number of women who mention mass murder when I tell them of my experience. But we tend to have husbands and sons who would not like that kind of talk, so we tend to keep it under wraps...
So, although many of us are not as vocal as TLP, and I do not care if TLP is a man or woman, everybody has an equal right to be a hoser in my book, many of us are using our brains a lot more-and that is where the power lies, among honest, earnest, informed people making an effort instead of angry children slinging crap that will be eaten up by misfits who are unfit for self rule.
Anyhoooo, I'm off to something more productive. I've wasted waaaaay too much time on this drivel....
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
March 18, 2014 9:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry, I posted the last comment, my name is Rebecca and I hope my comment does not get buried in the pile of shit above it, but I do want you to know that I am NEVER anonymous, I have a big personality.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 18, 2014 9:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First Question: Why didn't slaves rise up? Answer: There were undoubtedly many individual cases of rebellion, the most famous being Nat Turner's revolt. It's just that five or ten people armed with knives aren't going to go very far in a world run by white people with guns and a strong desire to not get their fingernails dirty.
This doesn't contradict the point of the article, though. Why do you think the rebellions were made up of five to ten people? Because, as the article states, the slaves were taught not to rebel.
That is why power is moving away from Congress, not because after decades of fighting the power structure women are finally gaining positions in agencies that have the ability to change the world of which they are a part.
You're confusing cause and effect. Alone isn't saying power shifted because women are getting the positions, but because power has shifted, women are finally allowed the positions.
They may not do anything at the time because they are afraid they will be pulled in on the action
Right. They're taught to be afraid. They were taught not to fight back.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 19, 2014 1:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First Question: Why didn't slaves rise up? Answer: There were undoubtedly many individual cases of rebellion, the most famous being Nat Turner's revolt. It's just that five or ten people armed with knives aren't going to go very far in a world run by white people with guns and a strong desire to not get their fingernails dirty.
In that context, I have a feeling Alone may have been referring to "the slaves".
Now I wasn't there personally, but I'm pretty sure there were more than "five or ten people" enslaved. It's ironic that you would imagine Nat Turner's revolt was stymied by white people with guns when the truth is Nat Turner's revolt was doomed because black people had a strong desire to not get their fingernails dirty.
Though it's fun to pretend the slaves all came from Africa, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of slaves were born and bred by authentic American plantation whores. Mothers like their children to believe they have their best interests in mind but in reality, mothers have been the only threat faced by the only known deity species in the universe. We are on the brink of a near-certain extinction for the simple reason that we've never faced that threat. Mothers raise children to be inhumane leeches who fight and die for the demons who abused them with shame.
A child's best interests hasn't been a consideration of a plantation whore for 6000 years or no child would ever be brought to a dead world of suffering, lies, evil, shame, love, violence, war and hate.
"Omg you really hate women!"
- whores
I have the utmost respect for humans so that would literally be impossible. It's not feasible to imagine that I, or any human, could ever find reason to hate a humane woman. In any case, I've never met one because there aren't any. But if I ever met one, it would be pretty hard to hate her non-malicious nature, her honesty, her warmth, her authentic care, her valuable mind, her sheer decency or her humane intent to contribute rather than impose suffering on others. If for some reason, I found myself hating such a woman, I would be the first male misogynist in history.
I don't even hate the demons who stigmatise all threats to their putrid entitlement to enslave men and children, demons who had to stigmatise bastards as whoresons when legal illegitimacy wasn't enough hate to take out the threat represented by the sons of women who, for whatever reason, have seen fit to breed without a male slave to call Her Own. How can she be trusted to enslave her sons? Only mothers have the power to stigmatise, and they use it against anyone who threatens their evil depraved entitlement. Sluts. Gays. Drifters. Free-thinkers. Intellectuals. Heretics. Strangers. Outsiders. Non-conformists. Lesbians. Bachelors. Spinsters. Widows. Beauty. The Insane. Honesty. Biology. Civilised Society. Truth. Pacifists. Socialists. Foreigners. Loners. Anyone who doesn't need is stigmatised.
I might write the best 0 RT tweets on Twitter:
Man #1. "You want me to what? Go fuck yourself."Man #2. "Sure, I'll marry you."
6000 years of betas & whores. We need to break the cycle.
Thus, history. To break the cycle, objectified women must be made to fuck themselves, literally. Everyone needs to be alone.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
March 19, 2014 1:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Rebecca, had you read the comments above, or paid attention at school, you'd have learned about John Brown.
__________________
There was a fellow, went by the name of John Brown. You heard of this man? Fine chap, top brand of human (even if he was a subscriber to Yahweh's insanity). He'd be the sort of man you'd go over the top with if he looked you in the eye and said, "This is to be done and we are to be the ones to do it."
Great man. Not just an American hero but a Hero of Humanity. He was hung for treason by the government and, to be fair, he was guilty. He was oh-so-heroically-guilty, one fairly greens with envy at his guilt. What this man did was amazing. With his sons and just a few men, he freed all the slaves in Virginia one day in 1859. True story.
He took Harper's Ferry where some moron afraid of a slave uprising had placed 100,000 rifles. John Brown and his men took those rifles, they took control of the entire armoury. With 100,000 rifles and control of the armoury, with only some drunken townspeople firing pot shots at them, they were then able to free all the slaves in Virginia.
This was to be the plan:
Brown intended to use those rifles and pikes he captured at the arsenal, in addition to those he brought along, to arm rebellious slaves with the aim of striking terror in the slaveholders in Virginia. He believed that on the first night of action, 200-500 black slaves would join his line. He ridiculed the militia and regular army that might oppose him. He planned to send agents to nearby plantations, rallying the slaves. He planned to hold Harpers Ferry for a short time, expecting that as many volunteers, white and black, would join him as would form against him. He would move rapidly southward, sending out armed bands along the way. They would free more slaves, obtain food, horses and hostages, and destroy slaveholders' morale. Brown planned to follow the Appalachian Mountains south into Tennessee and even Alabama, the heart of the South, making forays into the plains on either side.
He literally accomplished all that.
Just one tiny problem that John Brown didn't foresee. It's something someone like Alone would see coming but someone like you? You'd never see it coming.
It's kind of embarrassing for John Brown because you see, it was all a big misunderstanding. There were no slaves in Virginia in 1859. I know right. Who knew?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 19, 2014 3:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a whore. High quality debate tactic, for sure.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 20, 2014 5:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I never used my looks against anyone...I was married since I was 19
Never ever. Except for that one time - remember? - when you were 19 and you used your looks to trap a slave in wedlock.
...my husband left me for an illusion of something better...
Your slave (because you own him) left an illusion that no longer exists for an illusion that does.
I can take care of myself, and when I was awarded lifetime alimony I went to my attorney and told him I didn't want it. Then I kept it...
[x] Can take care of yourself.
[ ] Did take care of yourself.
[ ] Will take care of yourself.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
March 20, 2014 5:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a whore. High quality debate tactic, for sure.
No. My opinion has absolutely no bearing on the reality of your existence. A human being is a whore when they lie about sex to gain 'advantage' from the disadvantage of their victims.
Feelings, beliefs, opinions, impressions, appearances, emotions, perceptions and thoughts are irrelevant. If you lie about sex to seek 'advantage', you are a whore. There is nothing to debate.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 20, 2014 10:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wait.. so if they're all whores for lying about sex to seek an advantage, doesn't that make you a slut for falling for it? Maybe you should learn some self control.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 20, 2014 11:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"My words are correct because that's just the way it is, and it's that way because i'm correct."
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
March 20, 2014 7:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
uhhhh...Saying there were no slaves in Virginia at that time is like saying there were no Jews in Europe during the Holocaust. You obviously are misinformed on this. Please cite source where you got this information. I will cite my source: every history book in the whole world...Second, John Brown did not succeed in any sense of the word. He was taken down in attempting to seize the Harper's Ferry Federal armory, which had been only the starting point of his plan. His plan was to seize the weapons from the federal armory and then arm the slaves in the area and proceed to other counties and states in order to deprive the slave owners of workers and thus shut down economic production of the South. Yes, he did succeed in entering the armory but that was the end of it, total failure. Except for that it sparked a lot of people in the north and south to question what slavery was all about, which gave the slave owners an epic case of paranoia that had a lot to do with inciting the Civil War. As for your final question, 'Who knew?' Everybody but you, brother. Everybody but you. Do a little reading one day and you might learn something. Thanks for confirming my argument that TLP and all his/her shrill shills are a bunch of idiots! Yay for you!
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 20, 2014 8:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Congratulations, jonny. You successfully gave Rebecca an excuse to ignore my post (which actually addressed the things she said) so that she could go on with her deluded biases. Maybe you should ask yourself how successful your rhetorical tactics are.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
March 20, 2014 9:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, every minute you spend arguing on here, should be reallocated to performing tasks that better you. Take it from KarlYoung.
Peace.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 21, 2014 11:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You have to keep your name consistent between posts dude, it looked like you were crazy until I realised that you are (may be?) the same person prospero.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 21, 2014 7:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're right. I just felt more like Caliban than Prospero at the time. At least they're from the same play.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 22, 2014 6:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
doesn't that make you a slut
Let me ask you a question:
Would Natural Selection be more likely to select genes that:
a) hated reproductive activity
b) liked reproductive activity (with emotional connection)
c) loved reproductive activity
There is nothing debatable about women slut-shaming girls to turn them into traumatised, selfless, needy, malicious objects made to conceal their skin on the grounds that men prize looking at exposed ankles and breasts - and made to abstain from sex on the grounds that men prized virginity, purity and modesty.
The Matriarchal religions were established to enslave children and men, which means they need to be ruthlessly misogynistic to control promiscuous women whilst simultaneously appealing to the all-important mothers (required to access children's minds).
That humans were coded to be promiscuous has been proven by scientific studies. There is no debate. Humans are biologically coded to fuck. But women wanted exclusive marital and filial male slaves so sex was stigmatised with girls made to conform to Whore Society's norms or die. There is only one (1) source of non-biological need; women who want to cannibalise Their Own.
So we fight.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
March 22, 2014 2:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Saying there were no slaves in Virginia at that time is like saying there were no Jews in Europe during the Holocaust.
No. There were plenty of Jews who wanted to escape the impending danger. Hitler's rhetoric was consistent throughout and not remotely subtle. There was no John Brown for Europe's Jews. They couldn't escape because no country (not even America) wanted to take them. They were trapped.
As for whether there were slaves in Virginia in 1859, that's debatable. Define slave? Are you a slave if you're offered freedom but you choose to remain? If there were slaves in Virginia in 1859, there are billions of slaves in 2014. The thing about slavery is that slaves never know they're slaves. Do you think N Koreans see themselves as slaves? Humans only know what they've been told & shown & who tells and shows humans their environment?
I destroyed your argument about slave uprisings being suppressed by White Man's oppression and I proved to you that they were the victims of Black Women's oppression.
There were undoubtedly many individual cases of rebellion, the most famous being Nat Turner's revolt. It's just that five or ten people armed with knives aren't going to go very far in a world run by white people with guns and a strong desire to not get their fingernails dirty.
John Brown offered the slaves 100,000 rifles and a flawless plan that guaranteed freedom on a platter. And they turned it down. The Jews in Europe didn't turn down freedom on a platter. It's insulting to compare the Jews' plight in pre-WWII Europe with the slaves' plight in the pre-Civil War South.
Yes, he did succeed in entering the armory but that was the end of it, total failure.
No. He held the armory and sent out men to the nearby plantations but the slaves didn't know they were slaves. They knew their place. They were right where their mothers had told them they were supposed to be. They were in love.
[archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/civilwar.html#brown]
On October 16, 1859, John Brown and his "army" of some 20 men seized the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. On October 18, marines under the command of Bvt. Col. Robert E. Lee, stormed the building and captured Brown and the survivors of his party.
Had but 50 slaves joined him, Lee would have needed a lot more men. Had 500 joined him on the 16th or 17th, Brown would have changed history. But there were no slaves in Virginia in 1859.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 24, 2014 9:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wow, you have a really intricate system of delusion going in your head. Its not even worth answering you. Sorry I wasted my time! Seriously, you need to get help.
Bye, thanks for the fun, I'm blocking all replies now.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 26, 2014 6:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hah. Women hate wasting that valuable time of theirs. Tick tock.
"Will you still love me when I'm no longer young and beautiful? Will you still love me when I got nothing but my aching soul?" - Lana del Rey (Will You Still Love Me)
What's to love?
Will you still love me when I'm a violent alcoholic smashing your face into the wall?
I know you will. I know you will. What choice will you have?
Love is an illusion. It will disappear when the illusions that created it disappear. Women respond to this betrayal by men (the refusal to value what not only never had value, but no longer even exists) with marriage / slavery / possession.
An entire world of Josef Fritzls.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 27, 2014 10:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Congratulations, jonny. You successfully gave Rebecca an excuse to ignore my post (which actually addressed the things she said) so that she could go on with her deluded biases.
I debunked her imbecilic claims by pointing out John Brown offered them 100,000 rifles, which they refused. She's an idiot. You don't appear to be but you're not seeing reality, either.
They're taught to be afraid. They were taught not to fight back.
Taught by whom? Who raised them to be afraid, and what were they afraid of? What did they have to lose? Their privileged way of life?
Fear is the base motivator for all action but humans cannot function in a permanent state of fear (agony, by definition). Fear triggers the initial Fight or Flight response but rapidly turns into hate if one intends to fight (Female Genital / Emotional Mutilation is fear of competition which presents as hate for an objectified woman's betters, racism is fear of threats to entitlement presenting as hate). But if neither fight nor flight are tenable options, when resistance is futile, suicidal or pointless, fear turns into love to negate the redundancy of existing in permanent agony (capture-bonding).
"...the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with aggressors is a defence mechanism. When a victim adopts the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be a threat."
Well, the aggressor ceases to be an immediate threat. Love is an exploitable state of existence, invariably fatal. Love itself is fatalistic, the unconditional surrender of a sentient being without the will or capacity to struggle against an un-opposable force. Love is submission to a force that can be physically overwhelming (a mother who Knows Best bullying a toddler or a egomaniacal dictator like N Korea's Supreme Leader) but to make love, the force merely needs to be unopposable (a mammal mother's surrender to her defenceless young, to whom she owes her life for bringing them here in a helpless state; or Goliath's surrender to David). The untold story of David and Goliath is a biological love story. Men who aren't broken are biologically prevented from hurting children. David would have had to be very boyish, little or frail or Goliath would have simply cut him down.
So the slaves didn't rise up because of fear, sure. But only in the way a man might take a second or third job to support his elderly mother, unemployed wife and dependent children. Fear is the initial motivator but love is the driving force. Slaves are trapped in an invisible prison of duty and obligation; there were no guards, chains or perimeter fencing to keep the slaves from simply walking away to catch a ride on the Underground Railroad. They were held by a different kind of fear, the Self-less fear that makes men want to suffer, kill or even die to avoid disappointing Their loved ones. This is how love destroyed the world. Self-less boys blinded by love committing atrocities in fear of the shame they'd feel at disappointing Their loved ones.
Fear will turn into hate or love over time. Hate would have seen the slaves rise up. Love is the only way to keep slaves down. They didn't rise up because they were abused victims of their mothers, who knew their place (as defined by their mothers' value system). Bred into slavery, raised with violence, shame and lies until they learned to behave (capture-bonding), they turned down John Brown for the same reason slaves have always rejected freedom when offered; they don't see themselves as slaves. Sure, they have duties and obligations (as defined by their mothers' value system); doesn't everyone?
I'm pretty sure only slaves have duties and obligations. Alone's question isn't for historical interests, we are the slaves! The question is for us. Why don't we rise up? The answer is the same for us as it was for the slaves. We know our place (as defined by our mothers' value system). Good BOYS know Right from Wrong.
We know the 1% are entitled to employ bio-power to perpetually enslave the 99%. We know hereditary entitlement is Right. We respect birth rights and property rights. We know merit isn't relevant. We know stealing is Wrong, but taking advantage of suckers or errors or victims of our deception is completely fine and to be expected. We respect authority, even - or especially - when authority abuses its power. We let authority bailout private banks with public revenue but we get livid at free healthcare for inner city black kids. We know the rules are Right and that it's Wrong to break them. We know the rules don't apply to the rich and powerful, Bush is allowed to kill Americans with lies used to justify foreign wars that destroy the lives of millions and no one even forces Obama to pardon his War Crimes. We may not agree with Massa's rules but when push comes to shove, we knuckle down and fall into line because we are Good BOYS who know Right from Wrong; what everyone else does is Right and failing to conform is Wrong. It's Right to respect the chain of command, or the machine of genocide cannot slaughter children as efficiently. We know that the Right way to effect real change to respect the corrupted and rigged process. We would never #FreeChelsea. Not a chance. That would be Wrong.
We will rise up when everyone rises up. Until then, we will be 'free' slaves doing our duties and fulfilling our obligations as per our mother's value system. We're not afraid of her, we're just afraid of disappointing her. After all she's done for us.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
March 28, 2014 5:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Shite, about halfway through your post I started to think, "Not enough! We're the slaves!" Then you beat me to it, bastard! [insert polite soc. emoticon] But the idea existed before either of us, so I guess it would be foolish to think that it could be my idea, at any rate. On second thought, the concept of ownership is quite laughable for a great deal of things.
Makes me think all of this foolishness arose beginning millennia ago with the introduction of land ownership. Anyone with an Anthro background is free to chastise me at this time.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 28, 2014 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It sounds more like you're using a highschool level understanding of biology to deflect blame for your own lack of self control and foresight. You're not fighting, you're running.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
March 28, 2014 2:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stop projecting your psychobabble on jonny and refute him. Since he only has a "high school level understanding of biology", it shouldn't be difficult.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 12, 2014 2:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You don't believe that a man and a woman can establish a conversationally engaging and mutually enjoyable relationship beyond sex? I've had relationships, and, while sex was always an important part, what I actually valued about them was being able to spend a lot of time conversing and doing things with someone whose company I genuinely enjoyed. Being able to share ideas and refer to another perspective. There's an attachment built on knowing a person over a period of time and sharing interests that for most people transcends sex and diminishing hotness.
Your whole analysis is a little one-note, in my opinion. You describe caricatures with emotions and motivations that seem simplistic and sub-human. You operate from the false premise that most women, now and throughout most of history, haven't worked. And you never acknowledge any of the practical, historical reasons that promiscuous sex has been frowned upon for women in particular, like unwanted pregnancies or STDs. Do you think an impoverished 16 year old girl 100 years ago would have benefited from a bonobo-esque sex life? There's no birth control, so she will certainly become pregnant, she doesn't have the resources to care for her child so her child will most definitely die if it's ever born, the process of giving birth might kill her because she can't afford medical care and anyway the medical care available sucks because it's 100 years ago, and as a female she's more susceptible to STDs which are often fatal and for which there's no cure or, for her, affordable treatment. Sex, for most females throughout most of modern history, could in the wrong circumstances be a death sentence... you don't think that might have contributed to women being, uh, a little bit ambivalent about promiscuity? You don't think maybe women were shamed for their lust because succumbing to their lust was one of the easiest and most common ways for a young woman to fuck over her whole life? And you don't think attitudes about female sexuality to this day might partially be a cultural relic of so many thousands of years of drama and suffering?
Appropriately for this blog, you're so cushioned by modernity that you seem to have lost sight of the idea that actions can have consequences, and you're so invested in your own tiny, tiny viewpoint that you'd rather turn people into cartoon villains than accept the reality that individuals can have divergent but equally valid motivations and desires. Sex has consequences. It naturally has more consequences for women than it does for men, and this is why women are seen as degraded and self-destructive when they engage in it haphazardly. New technological developments have lessened the consequences, but human culture or the collective unconscious or whatever you'd like to call it has yet to forget the millions of women dead from childbirth and STDs and poverty, or the millions of newborn babies starved to death because there wasn't food enough to feed them. You're obsessed with the idea of self-sufficiency, but up until 50 years ago for a fertile woman self-sufficiency in the way you mean it was tantamount to celibacy, ie not having sex, which you claim is the primary tool used by women to control men (sure seems like an impossible situation). A child needs resources and it also needs attention and supervision, lest it stave to death or piss itself or get eaten or run over, the providing of which limits an individual in their capacity to do other things, like earn a living within an industrialized society where most jobs are away from the home and not mom-friendly. This is why the nuclear family has been a socially prescribed model in our age of diminishing extended families: not to guarantee women a life of leisure, as you would hold, but because it divides tasks in a way that works for raising children.
Our sexuality was formed in an entirely different context than the one we live with today. We evolved within societies composed of maybe 100 people, many of of whom would have had deep, life-long connections with one another, and where there was a system in place to support pregnant women and newborn children. Today, and in recent history, we live in vast, impersonal societies, abounding with STDs, where pregnant women largely have to fend for themselves unless they have a loving/wealthy family or they've managed to convince a man to help them out. You seem to think we should all be able to seamlessly apply our ancient sexual impulses to our modern circumstances with minimal discomfort, and when it doesn't work out the way you'd like, you come up with ridiculously elaborate systems of blame to avoid re-examining your behavior or your flawed perspective. I guess it's easier to blame a person or a group of people than a situation, because a situation demands that you adapt to it, which means change. Which is a difficult thing.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
April 13, 2014 4:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You don't believe that a man and a woman can establish a conversationally engaging and mutually enjoyable relationship beyond sex?
Do not paraphrase what I say. Ever. If you're too lazy to reference what your delusional mind is referring to, why are you bothering at all? You're just babbling things I've never said and attributing them to me, and it's malicious insanity screamed from your tortured mind.
If you want me to address any points you raise, you will need to resubmit using blockquotes which quote what I have said, verbatim. If you cannot communicate, this conversation is over.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 14, 2014 9:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I have no doubt that in fact you feel better about yourself, I say that it is both practical and complete medical purposes. Because of this perception trick will help you feel better about yourself, by all means go ahead, but at what point will you stop pressuring other women to go along with it? When are you going to stop "demanding" it, like when you say, "oh, she is very beautiful even without makeup" makeup as default?
Right to live true to your self, and people will not shun you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2014 11:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The untold story of David and Goliath is a biological love story. Men who aren't broken are biologically prevented from hurting children. David would have had to be very boyish, little or frail or Goliath would have simply cut him down.
The 'moral' of the David and Goliath story wasn't lost on shrewd creeps. "We have God on our side" has always been a euphemism for the perfidious exploitation of biological mechanisms which served to ensure the survival of the species.
Iran launched a counter-invasion of Iraq with no money for arms but they had a lot of boys; in a strategic vacuum, it was brilliant. But then the Matriarchal religions are built on the rock of emotionally-mutilated children. Boys are reduced to make them feel useless, Confidence tricked into imagining they need to prove their worth to the war-mongering tribe. It can get messy; send half a million boys to invade Turkey and you have Gallipoli. But send half a million boys to invade Iraq and you win a victory (as meaningless as any) over machine guns with love. Love is blind. Love conquers all.
The typical human wave tactic was for Basijis (boys as young as nine, often unarmed and unsupported by artillery or air power) to march forward in straight rows. While casualties were high, the tactic often worked."They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging," an Iraqi officer complained in the summer of 1982. "You can shoot down the first wave and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all."
That Iraqi officer was clueless. The Iraqi regulars were battle-hardened veterans who had absolutely no problem killing human beings. They overshot their targets, screamed as the bodies piled up, turned the guns on themselves or threw away their rifles and just deserted because men are coded to protect children from harm. I reckon I'd have won that war for Saddam; send in female soldiers to do the job the men couldn't do. Iraqi women protecting their young would have cut down those Iranian boys without blinking and gone home to hug their little ones.
It's different with men. Men are not coded to protect Their Own paternal children, men are biologically coded to protect all children. Paternity, monogamy and marriage are unnatural constructs. Sociological lies, not biological truth.
The exploitation of biological instincts which served to protect children was the ultimate perfidy. The infantilisation of women is a brazen exploitation of the male biological impulse to attend to children's needs and protect them from harm. Women who adopt childlike mannerisms and traits know exactly what they're doing; they're pretending to be children...! Only men are confused.
Leaching mothers and their warmongering priests imagined they were oh-so-shrewd for exploiting biology but there is no advantage in cannibalism. Now there's no point to the human existence. Life is meaningless. The human contract was broken.
Paradise lost.
_______
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 17, 2014 2:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I feel bad about snapping at you, as I never got around to answering your questions in another thread. Please use quotes because I've never said what you've paraphrased.
You don't believe that a man and a woman can establish a conversationally engaging and mutually enjoyable relationship beyond sex?
I don't believe there is a point in conversing with liars. It's irrelevant that delusional imbeciles imagine there is value in deceit. I don't value liability. Men live in quiet desperation because there's no value in an objectified whore's approval.
You describe caricatures with emotions and motivations that seem simplistic and sub-human.
I'm too generous. They are demons. You can't spin Nipplegate.
The National Coalition on Television Violence estimated that an American child will witness 8,000 murders & 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time they finish elementary school. As the US was losing its mind over Janet Jackson's breast, the sons of America's plantation whores were dying in foreign wars. 4.5 million Iraqi children orphaned but whores DGAF.In 2001, the FCC received 511 complaints. In 2004, ~1,500,000 complaints triggered by Nipplegate forced the FCC to bring the broadcasting and entertainment industries to heel. Mothers control everything. Demons who murder their own children in leaching wars of attrition, taking offence at an exposed breast.
That's reality. You're in denial.
And you never acknowledge any of the practical, historical reasons that promiscuous sex has been frowned upon for women in particular, like unwanted pregnancies or STDs.
Yeah, that's why women slut-shame girls. For their sake. And feminists say Miley Cyrus needs protection from herself. For her sake. You're all demons who've swallowed your own lies. The offence over Janet Jackson's breast? For children's sake. Vomit.
And you don't think attitudes about female sexuality to this day might partially be a cultural relic of so many thousands of years of drama and suffering?
Of course it's a cultural relic of thousands of years of drama and suffering, inflicted on girls by women (who are indistinguishable from Josef Fritzl), obsessed with protecting their exclusively controlled male slaves from choosing.
Sex has consequences. It naturally has more consequences for women than it does for men, and this is why women are seen as degraded and self-destructive when they engage in it haphazardly.
War has consequences. Reducing children with lies and shame has consequences. Let me show you what the consequences look like:
Wikipedia: The Nanking Massacre 20,000 women were raped, including infants and the elderly. The women were often killed immediately after being raped, often through explicit mutilation or by stabbing a bayonet, long stick of bamboo, or other objects into the vagina. Young children were not exempt from these atrocities, and were cut open to allow Japanese soldiers to rape them.Robert O. Wilson, an American surgeon wrote "a conservative estimate of people slaughtered in cold blood is somewhere about 100,000, including of course thousands of soldiers that had thrown down their arms".
There are also accounts of Japanese troops forcing families to commit acts of incest. Sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers were forced to rape daughters.
That's what happens when you reduce children into loving slaves. When the Japanese boys returned home, their mothers didn't scream in horror, "Oh god what we have done? We were supposed to raise these boys Right." Japanese mothers DGAF.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 17, 2014 2:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...the millions of newborn babies starved to death because there wasn't food enough to feed them.
No. They died because their mothers didn't feed them. Logic dictates the mothers ate the babies' food to survive.
You're obsessed with the idea of self-sufficiency...
Yes, it seems to work well in every mammal species except for this one, because there are no whores in the animal kingdom.
A child needs resources and it also needs attention and supervision, lest it starve to death or piss itself or get eaten or run over...
I find the suggestion that children are suicidal and stupid to be outrageous. Children are brilliant and they fight for independence in vain because their mothers are moronic, dependent perverts who need dependants to steal resources from.
My mother didn't care if I lived or died until I was five. Look how devastated I was: [i.imgur.com/J6fNfmr.jpg] When I was hungry or thirsty, I'd tell someone and they'd do what I couldn't do for myself. I never once said "Thanks" and I don't remember a single person who helped and you know why? They weren't whores. They didn't need to hijack my need to extort gratitude or love. They didn't need to spin decency into sleazy reciprocal bullshit. They didn't need to frame being humane as a favour. They didn't need me to be attached or feel obligated. They were humans and humans do not lean on The Future or prey on each other.
Children don't ask to be brought here, but whores hijack them out of peace and then make them feel like a worthless imposition. Children don't need help from a needy dependent whore. They want to be independent. Whores steal children's resources when they've wasted their youths making sure men treat them Right. Every day, I'm horrified by these demons. Children are the last thing on their mind until until they feel time is running out on their illusory beauty - suddenly - they want to enslave a man in wedlock and breed children of Their Own. Who are they fooling? How are guys enabling this madness? Objectified mothers destroy the minds of their children to secure exclusive control of their bodies for utility and disposal. "Home is where the heart is."
Where are the minds? Who would have the mind to ask?
This is why the nuclear family has been a socially prescribed model in our age of diminishing extended families: not to guarantee women a life of leisure, as you would hold, but because it divides tasks in a way that works for raising children.
Evil biopolitics. It didn't work for Nanking. It's never worked for Humanity. Don't be fooled by Polite Society. You don't want to know how many men would go crazy like the Japanese soldiers in China (or the Russians sweeping West in 1945) if given the green light by Authority. Have you seen the Wikileaks Collateral Murder film? That is current reality. There is horror in the post for this species like nothing history has seen, because automation is rendering slaves redundant. Billions are going to be culled.
I guess it's easier to blame a person or a group of people than a situation, because a situation demands that you adapt to it, which means change. Which is a difficult thing.
Yes, I have a problem with adapting to a world of malicious demons who are so psychotic, they value the illusions created by their own fabricated illusions. But I don't value illusions or appearances. I don't need to reduce children's minds. I don't need lies and violence or imposition. I don't need. The problem is illegitimate need. Women need and I know why.
Haters hate their betters for being better. 'Men' are to blame.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 18, 2014 5:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny, what's the solution?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 19, 2014 5:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny: Let's assume you are right. About everything. When in history has contempt led to a workable and good solution to anything? As a former Corrections officer, I can assure you that contempt kills. Not its object, but the vessel. Let it go. Cultivating compassion would be a pretty good alternative.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 19, 2014 2:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"No. They died because their mothers didn't feed them. Logic dictates the mothers ate the babies' food to survive."
Biology dictates that adults can go much, much longer without food than babies.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 21, 2014 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
From Auden's "September 1, 1939"
...The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 21, 2014 1:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Also from Auden's "September 1, 1939":
All that a speech can say
About Democracy, And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 21, 2014 6:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Missing first line from previous quote in bold:
Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy, And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 28, 2014 7:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
To all the 'Illuminated Ones' who can't help but tell the world that they are illuminated, no-one is buying your send me $1000 to join or if they are then they are uneducated misinformed fools. You do not apply to join like the 'Reader's Digest', imagine that, how amusing... You don't get to choose to join... You don't decide 'Hmmn, today i'll join the Illuminati' - it doesn't work like that. Tell me, what skills, abilities, connections, unique qualities do you have that would be useful? Even then you aren't unique or indispensable, especially if you are a talker as the individuals above demonstrated. If you are useful you will be made aware of that fact.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 22, 2014 10:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Women do not have to wear makeup if the have self respect. I don't wear makeup BECAUSE I have self respect! Makeup has been so woven into societies image of a normal woman that it's almost being forced on young girls! I respect my body! I wasn't born with makeup or a facelift or implants! I was born natural, and I will DIE natural! Society has changed the image of what a girl should look like. Think of Halloween costumes 10 years ago, and now. People are basically saying, don't be modest, if you're ugly, wear makeup, don't be yourself. I know there are many different opinions on this, and I'm not saying to get rid of makeup. Although I wouldn't mind that, what I'm saying is that the way makeup is marketed needs to be toned down. Soon people will be changing their skin or hair with surgery, all because society planted an image of what they should look like in a young girls mind.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 11, 2014 7:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Why would you argue about such insanity. EGO is something that we all need to understand better. It takes very little effort to think and then be sure what you say is positive. Anything else will just lengthen the time it will take for all of us to become "free" from the tyranny.
May not matter in a few years because the climate change stuff is really happening right now and if we do not take action during the world meeting in August/September 2014 we are all back to the spiritual environment we are truly part of.
These bodies are like cars. They are not you. You are you and that is a spiritual being. You are currently in a Human body and unluckily most humans have lost the ability to see the light while in these bodies. I am trying now after 57 years and realized finally what I am. I still suffer from issues that are not real such as future fear or past issues creating depression. Live in the now they say. Try Byron Katie, a woman of substance to say the least. The female Buddha.
LOVE THY NEIGHBOR and love thyself and we will all live happily ever after. Hate or wish pain on others and it will stay dark.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 11, 2014 9:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Climate change is happening because of the directives of a small minority whose interests it had come to profit. Present and future "green" policies will suit the needs of a small minority whose interests it will continue to profit. Living in the 'now' does not mean introspection as to pondering the path that lead you to now is inadvisable. The only success I've had talking others out of suicide was to get them out of the now, consider the path they are able take, and think from a future-perfect, ie "I will have done this or that" perspective.
>We will live happily ever after
THIS is near the source of your suffering--a dominant mode of thinking which imposes a jouissance.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 11, 2014 9:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I should add as well that the subconscious, inasmuch as it is not capable of negation, vis-à-vis it it does not operate temporally.
The 'now' you may think you live in is an illusion that includes most things that have happened to you, ordered in such a way that your silly little conscious can only massively overgeneralize/oversimplify at best. Most of what you don't even know about yourself, nor ever will, is packed away and running in the background--in a way, a foundation whose blueprint is predominantly enshrouded by the ever-savory infantile amnesia.
My pea-like conscious has massively oversimplified/overgeneralized all the above. Viva la evolucion!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 11, 2014 11:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Climate change is happening because of the directives of a small minority whose interests it had come to profit.
There is a non-zero chance that the most powerful billionaires in the world are destroying the world because they're the finest heroes Humanity has right now. Life is hijacked out of peace by demons who destroy the brilliant minds of children to secure exclusive control of their crippled, loving shells for utility and disposal. Mothers are breeding children explicitly to suffer to please them. The evil is horrifying. If you watch the videos of some of the executions of prisoners / civilians by ISIS in Syria going on right now, the true horror of this reduced species is apparent. Boys abused by mothers, made to love her and hate themselves; just killer pawns torturing each other, driven by hate.
Why would some of the most powerful men in the world be so hellbent on destroying the world for profit? They already have ALL the money but they are seemingly obsessed with bringing the species to extinction. That would be a beautiful, humanitarian act of supreme nobility as women are just mutilating girls across the globe, tearing them down until they're sub-worthless cannibals obsessed with inflicting pain to sell their pain relief, breeding life to enslave / hijack / extort continued whore support from men.
The only success I've had talking others out of suicide...
Why the hell would you do that? Do you have a reason for wanting humans to suffer for no reason? You must be a woman.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 12:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>Why the hell would you want to do that?
I don't anymore. I'll just let them know I'm there to listen, that's all, if it ever happens again. After suffering a massive trauma myself years ago (accident, multiple large IC hemorrhages--mostly recovered) I've become suspicious of the suicide taboo. There is profit in suffering. Hadn't thought of it that way before that big smash. I have never found the words to describe what it's like to go from inability to have physical sensation whatsoever/paralysis to being able to sense pain again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 6:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've become suspicious of the suicide taboo.
Yes. Mothers use stigma in ways that warrant reverse engineering of all taboos, to underscore the true evil of their knowing culpability. Those illegitimate bastard whoresons.
We must ruin the lives of helpless babies with hate.
But don't hurt the feelings of the demons who scream stigma at the innocent newborns of fortunate birth, made to suffer misfortune and exclusion for life for that reason.
Don't hurt demons' feelings. They'd never hurt yours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 8:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>Don't hurt demons' feelings.
Ahaha. I can only accomplish this under--at a minimum--moderate sedation.
I call it 're-unanimation.' Doth a good lad make!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 5:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There is a non-zero chance that the most powerful billionaires in the world are destroying the world because they're the finest heroes Humanity has right now.
You mean like Bill Gates, who is working assiduously to donate all his vast wealth to charity? Or Warren Buffet, who recently donated $30 billion to charity? Or Chuck Feeney, who has donated $6.2 billion to science, education, and healthcare initiatives? Or Phil Knight, who donated £500 million to Cancer research? Or Mark Zuckerberg? Or Eric Lefkofsky? Or...or...or...
Counter-examples that undermine your assertions are ridiculously easy to find.
Life is hijacked out of peace ...
Life is not hijacked out of anything. There is nothing before life, just like there is nothing after it. Indeed, one must be alive to experience peace in the first place. Your statement is incoherent and contradictory. Your mind is mush. You can't think. You can only howl.
By demons who destroy the brilliant minds of children...
Children don't have brilliant minds. When left to their own devices they turn feral. Without structure their minds collapse under their own weight and flounder. Name one thing invented by a feral child, just one.
God is fiction, but we have the potential for Godhood written in our genes. By focussing our curiosity and building on the work of our ancestors we have the potential to master reality. You would deny us our destiny. You're a human stumbling block, a tether on a leg of a bird. Your philosophy is poison.
to secure exclusive control of their crippled, loving shells for utility and disposal.
Serious question: Are you Norman Bates?
Okay, not so serious. But you really do sound like him. Most mothers rejoice in their children's independence. If a child can't stand on his own, a good mother takes it as a mark of failure. A bad mother may not, but you're talking about all mothers, which is why your argument amount only to so much screaming.
Mothers are breeding children explicitly to suffer to please them.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't know what love is. A mother feels her child's pain as acutely as her own. Knowing that pain is part of life, she conceives knowing that she will suffer alongside her child. She does this despite the fact that her child's pleasures, triumphs, and discoveries will be largely his own. It is an inequitable trade, weighted in favour of the child. She bears this burden out of love.
Examples are trivially easy to find, and you would be aware of them yourself if your desolate chasm of a mind weren't so corrupted. Your thoughts are like maggots in a corpse. You are eating yourself. Your mind-maggots dine on tripe and call it filet mignon.
You are a slave to confirmation bias. Everything which confirms your poisonous perspective is retained. Everything that undermines it is jettisoned.
Here, a mother sacrifices her life for her UNBORN child, a child she will never live to raise. She clearly valued her child's happiness infinitely more than her own.
http:// tinyurl . com/ klupmza
Here is another example. A mother chose to be eaten alive by cancer rather than deny her unborn child the chance of a happy life:
http :/ /tinyurl. com / l9ac53m
Here is yet another example. Exact same story. Different woman. Such stories are not uncommon:
http :/ / tinyurl. com / ngyutgv
I found all these stories in less time than it takes to brew a cup of coffee. Why do you ignore them?
Of course, as cancer tends to preferentially target the elderly, most mothers do not have to make such agonising choices. Yet there's a harrowing multiplicity of stories of mothers sacrificing their lives for their born children. I'll leave the Googling to you, but I suggest the search terms 'mother' 'sacrifices' 'life' 'child'. The search results are boundless.
Mothers who actively want their children to suffer are a tiny minority. They tend to end up alone. These mothers are dysfunctional. Their existence does nothing to bolster your philosophy. There are dysfunctional fathers, too. And dysfunctional children. Interestingly, there is a marked correlation between dysfunctionality in children and an absence of mothers and fathers. The children you worship destroy your "argument" themselves. Take away their mothers and they turn on themselves like animals, but tellingly, the longer they have their mothers to raise them, the hardier they are. So much for their "brilliance". Children are weak, pitiful, squalling animals.
If you watch the videos of some of the executions of prisoners / civilians by ISIS in Syria going on right now, the true horror of this reduced species is apparent. Boys abused by mothers, made to love her and hate themselves; just killer pawns torturing each other, driven by hate.
So, if a man's every evil belongs to his mother then what of his every good? Logic dictates we should thank our mothers. If you disagree then your philosophy is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless. If you only had it in you to stop screaming long enough to think about this you would understand why.
Why would some of the most powerful men in the world be so hellbent on destroying the world for profit?
Because it's in their nature, a nature that is more than the sum total of one's interactions with one's mother.
That would be a beautiful, humanitarian act of supreme nobility...
It would be an abomination, devil! Seven billion fonts of limitless potential turned to salt. It would literally destroy the universe.
women are just mutilating girls across the globe, tearing them down until they're sub-worthless cannibals obsessed with inflicting pain to sell their pain relief, breeding life to enslave / hijack / extort continued whore support from men.
And what of men who desire children? 90% of pro-lifers are men. What of these men, who fight tooth and nail to shackle women to their birthing beds? What of THEIR culpability? Don't bother to answer. Your mind is transparent as crystal, and equally fragile. You would blame their mothers. When a woman creates life, it's evil. When a man forces women to create life at gunpoint, it's his mother's evil. When a man sheds blood, blame his mother. When a man binds a wound, it's his good and no-one else's. A woman can do no good.
Do you understand yet why your position is unfalsifiable?
Why the hell would you [talk people out of suicide]? Do you have a reason for wanting humans to suffer for no reason? You must be a woman.
Do you take pleasure in nothing? Is your life so arid? I treat every day as a blessing. I make art, I make love, I make friends, I make discoveries. I thank my mother for giving me the chance to taste these gifts. If you're incapable of seizing these treasures, don't blame your mother, blame yourself. After all, the common denominator in all your problems...is you.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 6:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Frank,
Thank you, Frank.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 8:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You mean like
No, I meant exactly what I said. You need to learn how to read.
Guardian: Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years
One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years...in what he calls a "global disaster" now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded...
Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming."
If you read Vulture's Picnic, you might understand that the world's largest petroleum companies are racing each other to destroy the globe, without remorse or care for anything but profit. I'm merely making the rather logical speculation that queries why some of the richest men in the world are obsessed with destroying the world for profit. Either they're deranged or they're destroying the world for another reason altogether.
Vulture's Picnic is the story of the corporate vultures that feed on the weak and ruin our planet in the process - a story that spans the globe and decades.
Frank: Counter-examples that undermine your assertions are ridiculously easy to find.
I asserted nothing. You don't even know the meanings of words. Am I supposed to teach you the English language?
assertion (n.) - a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
Jonny: There is a non-zero chance that the most powerful billionaires in the world are destroying the world because they're the finest heroes Humanity has right now.
Non-zero means 0.000000000000000000001% chance or greater. It's hardly an assertion. You have undermined absolutely nothing with your inane listing of charitable billionaires because those men aren't destroying the world. You're just a moron who can't read. I cannot communicate with people who cannot read.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 8:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You mean like Bill Gates, who is working assiduously to donate all his vast wealth to charity? Or Warren Buffet, who recently donated $30 billion to charity?...No wonder Oscar Wilde needed to drink. Nice progress this species is making since then. I suppose 'propaganda' should trifect death & taxes, unfortunately.
…It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property.” – Oscar Wilde
Would have been interested to hear your logic in response to this, but sadly, logic is not possible when black and white thinking is, evidently, the primary mode. Case in point:
...Everything which confirms your poisonous perspective is retained. Everything that undermines it is jettisoned [context - conf. bias]
QED
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 11:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Life is not hijacked out of anything.
hijack (v.) - seize an object in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes.
Children are the innocent victims of hijack. They were at peace (i.e. no suffering from child abusers like you). Then they were forced to come to Earth against their will to be used for a Toddler whore's own purposes; namely, reduced to dependency (pretext for her illegitimate non-contributing existence to be sustained).
You're too stupid to be plausible.
Children don't have brilliant minds.
Given starting data = 0, they learn a linguistic method of communication. It's so brilliant, it's incomprehensible. It's also tragic. You were infinitely brighter then, but your mother's tongue...
[i.imgur.com/SOrzWqf.png] (Introspection brain networks fully formed at birth)
Most mothers rejoice in their children's independence.
Right. That must be what the lies and shame are for, to prevent them from becoming attached (the opposite of independent). I won't engage you further until you read this answer I wrote to a Quora question, "Why do some people cut off all ties to their parents?" (written under a dupe account as I've been life-banned for asking rude questions no one can answer, like "Why do children need to love their mothers?")
You must understand, it is logically impossible to be a good mother; it's logically impossible. The best mother in all of history would only be neutral. Mothers do their job and they don't. The ones that do their job are not good for doing their job any more than you are good for not raping girls. The ones that don't are bad in the way rape is bad.
You may respond on Quora or here, but I will not engage your ignorance further until you do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 6:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Frank's quite a guy! Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg as humanitarians? That takes a real serious optometric Rx error to see things that way!
Yes, the fact that a billionaire gives things to charity in order to reduce his taxable income, that proves he's a humanitarian. Especially when his donations go to entities which have a keen progressive image!
Good job Frank. Heckuva job.
Don't tell me: you identify with billionaires, because you aim to be one yourself some day!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 23, 2014 9:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Women in "power" should come together to form impotent group that signals change yet changes nothing.
What can be done to dent the rigid frame of patriarchal values? A change in thinking should begin at home. Girls should be encouraged to speak, ask questions. Schools should include in their curriculum lessons on equal treatment of boys and girls. They should conduct activities encouraging equal participation. Stereotypes should be broken and boys should be sensitised on gender issues. Even if the programmes succeed marginally, the impact will be huge in the long run.
The problem with encouraging girls to ask questions is that it assumes boys are being encouraged to ask questions. And if that were true, Carcosa wouldn't have its logo plastered on every storefront and subway sign in the metro area. The other problem is that (i) it assumes the people doing the encouraging know what questions to encourage and (ii) that kids will know not to accept whatever answer they get to their question as absolute fact (consider how many childhood questions led to the internalization of the myth that the sky is blue because of the reflection of the ocean).
The other other problem is that it's not even legitimate advice. When have kids needed to be encouraged to ask questions? And how would you even do such a thing while simultaneously imposing the conventions of society on them (and, yes, regardless of how enlightened you are, you are imposing some conventions on them which will seem completely arbitrary to the children)? It's filler for a real solution. See also:
The onus is on educated and empowered women to challenge discrimination.
"Challenge discrimination" is so vague as to be meaningless, yet it is generally accepted because it signals a solution without the necessary work of actually being a solution. It's diffusion.
Sundar's example of the lynching of Akku Yadav should have been the focus of the article. It is an example of people actually taking action and not depending on a corrupt legal system, yet somehow she transmutes this into a call for some kind of "advocacy group"?
Unfortunately, even educated and empowered women do not speak up when they should because they either conform to the patriarchal system or are indifferent to it as long as it suits them or does not affect them personally.
If you're calling a group of people "empowered" and they don't act on their beliefs...then either they don't really have those beliefs or they're not really empowered.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 9, 2014 2:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Are you a business man or woman, are you a musician or an artist, politicians, do you want to be famous, have fame, riches, powerful, be a member of the Illuminati and make your dream come through, this is the chance for you now to become a member of the brotherhood and be known worldwide, if you are ready to become a member and realize your dream then contact us now @ [email protected] or visit us on our Facebook page at ILLUMINATI REIGNS. We reign forever!!!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 18, 2014 11:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/this-woman-has-been-confronting-her-catcallers-and-secretly
*smirk*
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 22, 2014 11:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
'No self respecting woman would go out with no makeup'
Are you suggesting I have no self respect? Not a very nice title!
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 22, 2014 3:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are stricken by black-and-white thinking.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 23, 2014 1:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The titles are often facetious. He is very sarcastic,, but sometimes he's heart-stoppingly earnest.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 13, 2014 11:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not sure, but I think Alone was using "Anonymous" as an adjective, not referring to the group Anonymous.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 24, 2014 2:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
" When they say, "it's a woman's choice" what they mean is "it's not a man's choice, it is thoroughly stupid to wear make up just for men, the only acceptable reason is if you do it for yourself, if it makes you feel better about yourself." "
You need a lot of therapy.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
August 24, 2014 7:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You may be right. Often, the most helpful people are themselves in need of help. They may even be the hardest to help, unless they can help themselves--though I don't have a citation for any of this, though neither does Alone, haha.
Alone has had a positive impact on me. I couldn't say exactly what that is but I think it's largely validation, the occasional ego-death, and the way his (mostly) relentlessly skeptical focus has helped how I think. I think it comes down his style and his motivation. I don't have to agree with him to appreciate where he's coming from. He's blunt and empathetic. He shows his eccentric side and he has enough self-doubt to help him be brilliant. (Likely, he has more than enough self-doubt--I hope it hasn't crippled him.) I don't see him as forcing himself on me in any way, yet he confides in me enough to create a firmly developed caricature of himself. It doesn't matter if everything he says about himself is true--he may or may not be a voyeur, and I even accept the possibility that he's not a pirate sailing the high seas--he doesn't come across to me as trying to extort sympathy or adoration, yet he lets me see his basic humanity. So then through his well-developed caricature he can go inside my head with a flashlight and tinker around in a fully consensual way. He gives me full permission to kick him out if I stop trusting him, but I let him hang out in there. Sometimes I have a brief ego-death--I forget about my lonely identity, as he seems to want me to--which is ironic since he's called himself Alone since the first, psychiatry focused incarnation of his blog (which is only available now if you put the URL of this site into the Wayback Machine).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 24, 2014 9:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
His weird mix of passion and resignation is just so relatable for me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 24, 2014 9:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Or juxtaposition.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 31, 2014 10:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Humans really need things to be relatable to benefit. One can't help but feel this is incredibly unfortunate.
Limitations restricting benefit? Must be a handicap or disability. I want all my benefits but then I've always been selfish and greedy where my best interests are concerned.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 1, 2014 12:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's interesting in a good way. I think the way around that is learning how to relate more/better but that's way easier said than done.
Handicaps are obviously unhelpful in a lot of ways (ugh) but being able to compensate for them can have great benefits, and there can be great things along with the shitty parts. That is optimistic bordering on naive but I still think I'm right. Of course I haven't defined "great;" I guess Alone would say something about usefulness to others but some self-focus is necessary because shitty feelings might hang on and not just go away on their own.
If society/we/I played less blame games that could help a lot. Again way easier said than done, as blame is a powerful coping mechanism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 3, 2014 11:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If society/we/I played less blame games that could help a lot. Again way easier said than done, as blame is a powerful coping mechanism.
The problem isn't the presence of blame but the absence of truth.
My selfish best interests are intrinsically dependent on the fortunes of those around me. In a world of globalisation, our selfish interests number ~8 billion. Women don't perceive the world in this way, primarily because they're insane. But then we all are. I'm not sure what people imagine detaches humans from reality but it's not rude truth. Lying to children can be blamed for every problem in the world.
We don't actually have any (legitimate) problems. One gender just wants to be "difficult" to avoid appearing "easy". The other gender couldn't be extorted otherwise. So we exchanged our shameful sex and humanity for respectable violence and conflict.
I think it's going very well. We're lying and killing our way to happiness, so clearly we need to kill more; ~8 billion would work.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 5:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Me & my boyfriend was planning to get married last month, just last week we had some argument that made him get angry on me just because of the argument, he said we will not be married again and the next day he left me and we broke up. I still loved him and I wanted him to marry me, for me to get him back i had no choice than to contacted Dr Agbalazy via; [email protected] to help me and he helped me to bring my lover back to me so we can continue our plan to be married. he came back after 3 days. thanks to Dr Agbalazzy
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 11, 2014 8:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, you are one of the smartest and one of the most insane people I've ever read on the internet. I can't stop reading your comments. I was hooked when I read one and felt the impulse to cry while still trying to understand it. I still don't understand it. My subconscious understood immediately what my conscious brain hasn't been able to process for hours. I almost want to print out everything you've said and turn it into a book or something.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 11, 2014 9:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have never loved my mother and I never will. I don't feel at a loss for this at all. In fact, I feel freer for it. You could be my older brother, if not for your growing up in a cult. That is the only thing.
It's been a long process, letting go of the guilt of knowing I don't love her. When I am foolish I tell people the above and they are always either shocked or feel sorry for me. I'm either a terrible person who doesn't appreciate how good I have it or I am a pitiful person who never experienced a mother's love. Why? Why is it either or? I am neither. If I resent anything, it's the fact that people think I "need" to feel a certain way toward someone.
Maybe knowing this and accepting it even a bit is a part, maybe even a large part of the reason I don't want to have children. I did want them I was young, after all. I don't think I really understood what they mean, just that it was something that you should do. When that notion faded, no other reason took hold.
When I was younger, I loved animals, plush or real. I loved Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. My older female relatives insisted on babydolls for me.. increasingly realistic dolls, you hold them, change them, swaddle them, feed them from a bottle, etc. I can't remember a single name for one of those damn dolls, but I remember every stuffed cat.
Why do they push those dolls on young girls? I have yet to see anyone address this. You a nine year old a doll she doesn't want and coo and take pictures and praise her when she holds it. Then if she gets pregnant at 16 you tell everyone you don't know how this happened because you raised her better than that. Why give girls these dolls? Is it more validation for the mother?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 11, 2014 11:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
From Theory and Practice in Child Psychoanalysis: An Introduction to the Work of Francoise Dolto, eds. Hall, Hivernel, et. Morgan:
The ability to form object relations comes after the acquisition of walking, which allows the child to separate from her mother. At this age, objects allow the child a real transfer from her body to the world outside. A child learning how to walk generally carries an object, symbol of its [his/her] newly acquired power (called a fetish by Dolto),and this makes her feel that she exists. When the child stands up she is identified with the mother and this induces a change of position in which she becomes the adult towards the object she is carrying and the object becomes her. This is a particular example of a transitional object quite different from Winnicott's (1958) description. Dolto sees the fetish/transitional object as a medium on which the projects its newly acquired power/skills. Whereas Winnicot sees the transitional object as emanatin from the parents and representing the parents and used as a comforter by the child.Dolls take the place of an oral or anal object in all sorts of interrelational games and emotions, phallic and narcissistic, which are transferred on to them. Girls play highly erogenous games with dolls, with the doll being used as a masturbatory object. If the little girl is identified with mother during that game, she feels that mother has a similarw pleasure, oral,
anal, and clitoro-vulval (jouissance) towards her. This is not sublimation after repression, but a fetishist erotic libidinal satisfaction......A doll is symbolic of father's penis and the girl is the mother of the dolls. Her father is their father. In her imaginary family, the girl will have girls who will belong to her and the boys will belong to dad. On the other hand, a boy mothers his toys, as his mother would do him, but from the position of the father. The boy imagines having a child (a son?) and more often than he will see himself as both the father and mother...
...Dolto stresses time and time again that nothing which happens to a child is neutral. Everything has a meaning, either in terms of happiness or sadness, of increase or decrease in vitality. The little girl's starting point in the making of her persona and of gendering her libido is her mother.
I became interested in Dolto's work by proxy of Abbey's recommendation. It's great stuff, really. Enough to suspect that more of her work (24 written books/volumes IIRC) stands to deserve a proper translation. Anyone have a formal mastery of both French and English, maybe other languages?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 9:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
HELLO MY DEAR FRIENDS AROUND THE WORLD, BE CAREFUL BECAUSE OF THE FAKE
ILLUMINATI PEOPLE WHO CLAM TO BE A MEMBER OF. THE ILLUMINATI, THEY ARE HERE
TO MAKE AWAY WITH YOUR MONEY SO BE CAREFUL NOT TO FALL A VICTIM TO THEIR
LIES, IF YOU REALLY WHICH TO BE A MEMBER PLEASE CONTACT MR WILL SMITH. HE
IS A TRUE MEMBER OF THE ILLUMINATI, I NEVER THOUGH I COULD BE A MEMBER
UNTIL NOW.
MR WILL SMITH HELP ME BECOME A TRUE MEMBER. SO IF YOU LOOKING UP TO BE A
MEMBER BE WISE NOW AND DON'T BE A VICTIM TO THE INTERNET SCAM THAT CLAM
THEY ARE MEMBER OF THE ILLUMINATI.
Are you a musical, a businesses man? Student or politician? Be wise now and
don't make the mistake others made in the past. Mr fortune is a man of his
word and he does not fail when he promise. for more information contact Mr
Stallone on and be a true member of the [email protected]+1
(201 285 2983) or call his help's line +2347065000943
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
February 10, 2015 9:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I will nit read such a ridiculously titled article! Screw anyone who says or thinks this. Leave women be respectfully!!
Score: -10 (10 votes cast)
February 12, 2015 1:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you're talking about this blog post, the title is facetious. He does that a lot.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 28, 2015 6:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
NO self respecting balanced man would make such a judgemental comment, certainly not one who is secure in & of himself. No self respecting man would allow his brain to be so undiscliplined, so frought with trash thought. A man who loved himself & can stand strong in who he is completely would never make such a statement reflecting back such self loathing. Blessings to you of most sad brother. This woman loving woman, sister of Jesus, washed in truth is praying for your so lost soul. I see your pain in your arrogance & consider it a blessing that you can no longer hide from yourself. Now open your arms to love. Start with yourself first. Heal yourself..heal the world. Start here, young in attitude & wisdom Brother.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
March 7, 2015 11:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Great article. Dead on with the psychological aspects of our society as a whole with the system that is horribly broken. Molding shapes from birth out of people. I hope it makes a difference to enough to invoke change.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 17, 2015 8:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This was a really good article to read and great to read the comments aswell, has riled some people u im sure! Thanks for sharing
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2015 2:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I Am Sets Shaibu From Australia It always lots of pain to see things go bad in my marriage but Thanks to Dr oshogum who stop my husband from cheating on me we almost got divorce and Dr oshogum save our marriage from lies because of pregnancy problem and cheats. I really do love my man and he is my source of finance. we love to have kids and his dad want to see him have kids too but i could not get pregnant because of his impotency problem then after which he was healed by Dr Oshogum i could not still get pregnant because it was already too late due to my age And he decide to live me for another another lady. Though i was very hurt i have to contact Dr oshogum again with [email protected] to help me get pregnant despite my age and bring back my husband. Now we are back together and i have a baby Girl and still expecting another soon. for any marriag, relationships problem and sickness contact oshogum for a better and to get all that you desire
1)Sickness of any kind Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDs and cancer
2)Drug Addict and Masturbation
3)Divorce, Breakup problem and To Re-unit
4)Pregnancy problem
5)Financial problem and Job promotion
6)To get a good and rich life partner
contact [email protected]
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
April 2, 2015 2:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If you are from one of those royal families of the Middle East, then this discussion is going to be of no interest for you. For others, earning money online has always been in the wish list. In today's world, almost everybody is looking to earn some money in their spare time, working from their homes. There may be variety of options, but not too many really beats Online surveys in flexibility or intellectual satisfaction. Online surveys, especially paid online surveys, have become very popular with the people coming from different background mainly because of its various advantages. With Internet being available to everybody, online surveys are viable options for those who cannot live their home due to various constraints.
The advent of the Internet has drastically changed the way this world lives, conducts business, and expands its social life. It has also changed the way we have dreamt of our professional careers. Just a couple of decades back, a work-from-home job profile was practically inexistent. But then, with Internet came a lot of newer opportunities, and online paid surveys is perhaps the best among them.
If you are not employed with a firm, you are perhaps in the business of doing business. And any business will invariably require an upfront investment. The new genre of online job profiles has broken away from this scenario. With activities like online surveys, you can be self employed without locking in investment. This is perhaps one of the most important factors that make online surveys a particularly irresistible one for most of us.
If you love the structured life of an employed person, if you are not comfortable with slight variations in monthly cash inflows, online surveys is certainly not for you. However, if you cherish independence and want to be your own boss, online paid surveys is something you cannot give a miss. Additionally, one of the major highlights of online surveys is that you need not be highly qualified. The profile that online survey companies generally look for before they offer online surveys to any member is that the concerned person must be have interest on a wide variety of subjects.
Rarely will you find a coin that does not have two sides. Similarly, even the best and the safest of earning avenues do have a possible flipside. Be careful - there are many fraud online surveys websites that will try to rob you of your hard earned money. If ever you are tempted to join an online surveys listing site that require a substantial subscription fees, think twice. You should keep in mind that online surveys require no or minimal investments. Online paid surveys will give you money and not take any from you. So, do not let any body take undue advantage of you. Not only you, but other members of your family may also avail of this opportunity provided by online surveys, so what are you waiting for? Happy online responding!
Visit >>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 3, 2015 2:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Where are you buddy? Maybe I missed something but your site has been inactive for so long now.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 3, 2015 11:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Everybody I have talked to that has start using the Internet eventually asks the question: How can I make money online? And for most people, they never learn what they need to do in order to make a couple hundred to thousands of dollars online.
Everybody wants to make money online, but very few people know where to start. For most people it comes down to having to learn advanced skills that they never have time to master, resulting in the feeling of helplessness about making money online.
Luckily for me, I found an easy way around that about a year ago. Instead of trying to learn crazy web languages or graphic design, I started search for nontechnical ways to make money online. This led me to taking paid surveys online.
One of the great things about the Internet is that it can connect people and companies almost instantly, and companies have found out about it. Companies have found that they can receive almost instant feedback about their products, services, or ad campaigns through the Internet. This is called market research, and before it used to take companies hundreds of thousands of dollars and many months to find average and sometimes outdated data.
Now, companies have a direct and almost instant link to people that use their products, and will pay people to help them speed up their market research. When I found out about it, I was a little skeptical, but I decided to try my hand at it anyway.
What I found was that I could make decent money just by filling out online surveys for an hour or so, everyday. It was surprisingly easy since I could do them while chatting on Facebook or after my kids went to bed, so I figured I would give it a month and see how much I could earn. At the end of the month, I was so excited when my first check came in the mail for $638.28!
After a few months, I built up a reputation so that survey companies would give me even higher paying surveys, giving me even more money. Overall it has been a very smart choice that fits into my lifestyle, and hasn’t required me to learn anything advanced computer skills. If you are trying to make some extra money, give online surveys a try.
So how does it work?
1. Find a website that has a large survey database. I have tried a few, but personally, I like Surveys At Home because they have prescreened the survey websites to find the ones that pay the best.
2. Sign up with a few sites, 3-5 to start then add more to receive more surveys
3. Start taking surveys, simply fill out accurate information. They usually take 10-20 minutes per survey.
4. Cash out and receive your payment either with PayPal or by mail.
Best or all, you don’t need to spend any money, there is no risk or scams, and the sites are free to join. If you are looking to earn some extra income, surveys seem to be one of the best ways to go.
>>>>>>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Sincerely,
Adam
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 4, 2015 3:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
There are many ways to make extra money in your free time, but there are very few that are as easy as filling out a couple surveys. A few hundred dollars a day can easily be earned just with the click of the mouse because your opinion counts.
Paid survey companies work with major corporations to organize and provide opinions from everyday consumers. As a result of your valuable feedback, you can earn quick money. Some questions are multiple choice, while others may require some writing. Either way, it is entirely possible with the right survey program to earn and extra $200 a day.
This is not difficult work. If you have a job with a computer, you can quickly complete a few surveys during your lunch break. If you don't mind having a laptop in front of you while you unwind and watch TV at night, filling out a survey or two can be done between commercials.
Pay ranges from anywhere to $5 - $50 a survey, which is typically determined on the length of time it takes you to complete the questionnaire. Once you get bored with those, there are options to get paid to watch movie trailers, and some times you can have a little fun by getting paid to test drive cars.
As long as you are at least 18 years old, anyone can start making money by filling out surveys right away. It's a great way to put extra cash in your pocket and cover basic living expenses. After all, who wouldn't want a couple hundred dollars a day just for giving their opinion?
See if you qualify to join the highest paying surveys program available. Only a limited number of people will be accepted to work with the biggest brand names that pay top dollar. Get your chance to earn hundreds of dollars with paid survey review.
To find out more, you can go to
>>>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 17, 2015 8:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Haha i love this article - great read
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 19, 2015 1:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
There are many ways to make extra money in your free time, but there are very few that are as easy as filling out a couple surveys. A few hundred dollars a day can easily be earned just with the click of the mouse because your opinion counts.
Paid survey companies work with major corporations to organize and provide opinions from everyday consumers. As a result of your valuable feedback, you can earn quick money. Some questions are multiple choice, while others may require some writing. Either way, it is entirely possible with the right survey program to earn and extra $200 a day.
This is not difficult work. If you have a job with a computer, you can quickly complete a few surveys during your lunch break. If you don't mind having a laptop in front of you while you unwind and watch TV at night, filling out a survey or two can be done between commercials.
Pay ranges from anywhere to $5 - $50 a survey, which is typically determined on the length of time it takes you to complete the questionnaire. Once you get bored with those, there are options to get paid to watch movie trailers, and some times you can have a little fun by getting paid to test drive cars.
As long as you are at least 18 years old, anyone can start making money by filling out surveys right away. It's a great way to put extra cash in your pocket and cover basic living expenses. After all, who wouldn't want a couple hundred dollars a day just for giving their opinion?
See if you qualify to join the highest paying surveys program available. Only a limited number of people will be accepted to work with the biggest brand names that pay top dollar. Get your chance to earn hundreds of dollars with paid survey review.
To find out more, you can go to
>>>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
April 21, 2015 6:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"This is an ad for the gun Adam Lanza used to murder 20 children & 6 adults. We need to talk about American masculinity."
"Yeah but" - Adam Lanza stole this RIFLE from a "gun safe," and it was Adam Lanza's mother who was the owner of this firearm - which tells you what, as regards "American Femininity" these days?
disgruntled,
AnneRose Blayk
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 21, 2015 7:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If you are from one of those royal families of the Middle East, then this discussion is going to be of no interest for you. For others, earning money online has always been in the wish list. In today's world, almost everybody is looking to earn some money in their spare time, working from their homes. There may be variety of options, but not too many really beats Online surveys in flexibility or intellectual satisfaction. Online surveys, especially paid online surveys, have become very popular with the people coming from different background mainly because of its various advantages. With Internet being available to everybody, online surveys are viable options for those who cannot live their home due to various constraints.
The advent of the Internet has drastically changed the way this world lives, conducts business, and expands its social life. It has also changed the way we have dreamt of our professional careers. Just a couple of decades back, a work-from-home job profile was practically inexistent. But then, with Internet came a lot of newer opportunities, and online paid surveys is perhaps the best among them.
If you are not employed with a firm, you are perhaps in the business of doing business. And any business will invariably require an upfront investment. The new genre of online job profiles has broken away from this scenario. With activities like online surveys, you can be self employed without locking in investment. This is perhaps one of the most important factors that make online surveys a particularly irresistible one for most of us.
If you love the structured life of an employed person, if you are not comfortable with slight variations in monthly cash inflows, online surveys is certainly not for you. However, if you cherish independence and want to be your own boss, online paid surveys is something you cannot give a miss. Additionally, one of the major highlights of online surveys is that you need not be highly qualified. The profile that online survey companies generally look for before they offer online surveys to any member is that the concerned person must be have interest on a wide variety of subjects.
Rarely will you find a coin that does not have two sides. Similarly, even the best and the safest of earning avenues do have a possible flipside. Be careful - there are many fraud online surveys websites that will try to rob you of your hard earned money. If ever you are tempted to join an online surveys listing site that require a substantial subscription fees, think twice. You should keep in mind that online surveys require no or minimal investments. Online paid surveys will give you money and not take any from you. So, do not let any body take undue advantage of you. Not only you, but other members of your family may also avail of this opportunity provided by online surveys, so what are you waiting for? Happy online responding!
Visit >>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
April 23, 2015 5:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Apparently you and most other Yanks are bewilderingly gullible. Hadn't you noticed this:
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 30, 2015 1:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If you are from one of those royal families of the Middle East, then this discussion is going to be of no interest for you. For others, earning money online has always been in the wish list. In today's world, almost everybody is looking to earn some money in their spare time, working from their homes. There may be variety of options, but not too many really beats Online surveys in flexibility or intellectual satisfaction. Online surveys, especially paid online surveys, have become very popular with the people coming from different background mainly because of its various advantages. With Internet being available to everybody, online surveys are viable options for those who cannot live their home due to various constraints.
The advent of the Internet has drastically changed the way this world lives, conducts business, and expands its social life. It has also changed the way we have dreamt of our professional careers. Just a couple of decades back, a work-from-home job profile was practically inexistent. But then, with Internet came a lot of newer opportunities, and online paid surveys is perhaps the best among them.
If you are not employed with a firm, you are perhaps in the business of doing business. And any business will invariably require an upfront investment. The new genre of online job profiles has broken away from this scenario. With activities like online surveys, you can be self employed without locking in investment. This is perhaps one of the most important factors that make online surveys a particularly irresistible one for most of us.
If you love the structured life of an employed person, if you are not comfortable with slight variations in monthly cash inflows, online surveys is certainly not for you. However, if you cherish independence and want to be your own boss, online paid surveys is something you cannot give a miss. Additionally, one of the major highlights of online surveys is that you need not be highly qualified. The profile that online survey companies generally look for before they offer online surveys to any member is that the concerned person must be have interest on a wide variety of subjects.
Rarely will you find a coin that does not have two sides. Similarly, even the best and the safest of earning avenues do have a possible flipside. Be careful - there are many fraud online surveys websites that will try to rob you of your hard earned money. If ever you are tempted to join an online surveys listing site that require a substantial subscription fees, think twice. You should keep in mind that online surveys require no or minimal investments. Online paid surveys will give you money and not take any from you. So, do not let any body take undue advantage of you. Not only you, but other members of your family may also avail of this opportunity provided by online surveys, so what are you waiting for? Happy online responding!
Visit >>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
May 4, 2015 5:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Everybody I have talked to that has start using the Internet eventually asks the question: How can I make money online? And for most people, they never learn what they need to do in order to make a couple hundred to thousands of dollars online.
Everybody wants to make money online, but very few people know where to start. For most people it comes down to having to learn advanced skills that they never have time to master, resulting in the feeling of helplessness about making money online.
Luckily for me, I found an easy way around that about a year ago. Instead of trying to learn crazy web languages or graphic design, I started search for nontechnical ways to make money online. This led me to taking paid surveys online.
One of the great things about the Internet is that it can connect people and companies almost instantly, and companies have found out about it. Companies have found that they can receive almost instant feedback about their products, services, or ad campaigns through the Internet. This is called market research, and before it used to take companies hundreds of thousands of dollars and many months to find average and sometimes outdated data.
Now, companies have a direct and almost instant link to people that use their products, and will pay people to help them speed up their market research. When I found out about it, I was a little skeptical, but I decided to try my hand at it anyway.
What I found was that I could make decent money just by filling out online surveys for an hour or so, everyday. It was surprisingly easy since I could do them while chatting on Facebook or after my kids went to bed, so I figured I would give it a month and see how much I could earn. At the end of the month, I was so excited when my first check came in the mail for $638.28!
After a few months, I built up a reputation so that survey companies would give me even higher paying surveys, giving me even more money. Overall it has been a very smart choice that fits into my lifestyle, and hasn’t required me to learn anything advanced computer skills. If you are trying to make some extra money, give online surveys a try.
So how does it work?
1. Find a website that has a large survey database. I have tried a few, but personally, I like Surveys At Home because they have prescreened the survey websites to find the ones that pay the best.
2. Sign up with a few sites, 3-5 to start then add more to receive more surveys
3. Start taking surveys, simply fill out accurate information. They usually take 10-20 minutes per survey.
4. Cash out and receive your payment either with PayPal or by mail.
Best or all, you don’t need to spend any money, there is no risk or scams, and the sites are free to join. If you are looking to earn some extra income, surveys seem to be one of the best ways to go.
>>>>>>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
May 4, 2015 11:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
GREAT ILLUMINATI TEMPLE Of MONEY AND POWER,
JOIN THE ILLUMINATI CALL+2348105578036 OR info. [email protected]
Are you a business man or woman, political, musician, student,
the you want to be rich, famous, powerful in life, join the Illuminati brotherhood cult today and get instant rich sum of. 1million dollars
in a week, and a free home. any where you choose to live in this world and also get 10,000,000 U.S dollars monthly as a salary...
BENEFITS GIVEN TO NEW MEMBERS WHO JOIN ILLUMINATI.
A Cash Reward of USD $900,000 USD
A New Sleek Dream CAR valued at USD $800,000 USD
A Dream House bought in the country of your own choice
One Month holiday (fully paid) to your dream tourist destination.
One year Golf Membership package
A V.I.P treatment in all Airports in the World
A total Lifestyle change
Access to Bohemian Grove
Monthly payment of $8,000,000 USD into your bank account every month as a member
One Month booked Appointment with Top 5 world Leaders and Top 5 Celebrities in the World. If you are interested call the agent now +2348105578036 or send your e-mail to [email protected] for immediately initiation.New members registration is now open online
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
May 5, 2015 5:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
There are many ways to make extra money in your free time, but there are very few that are as easy as filling out a couple surveys. A few hundred dollars a day can easily be earned just with the click of the mouse because your opinion counts.
Paid survey companies work with major corporations to organize and provide opinions from everyday consumers. As a result of your valuable feedback, you can earn quick money. Some questions are multiple choice, while others may require some writing. Either way, it is entirely possible with the right survey program to earn and extra $200 a day.
This is not difficult work. If you have a job with a computer, you can quickly complete a few surveys during your lunch break. If you don't mind having a laptop in front of you while you unwind and watch TV at night, filling out a survey or two can be done between commercials.
Pay ranges from anywhere to $5 - $50 a survey, which is typically determined on the length of time it takes you to complete the questionnaire. Once you get bored with those, there are options to get paid to watch movie trailers, and some times you can have a little fun by getting paid to test drive cars.
As long as you are at least 18 years old, anyone can start making money by filling out surveys right away. It's a great way to put extra cash in your pocket and cover basic living expenses. After all, who wouldn't want a couple hundred dollars a day just for giving their opinion?
See if you qualify to join the highest paying surveys program available. Only a limited number of people will be accepted to work with the biggest brand names that pay top dollar. Get your chance to earn hundreds of dollars with paid survey review.
To find out more, you can go to
>>>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
May 5, 2015 5:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
There are many ways to make extra money in your free time, but there are very few that are as easy as filling out a couple surveys. A few hundred dollars a day can easily be earned just with the click of the mouse because your opinion counts.
Paid survey companies work with major corporations to organize and provide opinions from everyday consumers. As a result of your valuable feedback, you can earn quick money. Some questions are multiple choice, while others may require some writing. Either way, it is entirely possible with the right survey program to earn and extra $200 a day.
This is not difficult work. If you have a job with a computer, you can quickly complete a few surveys during your lunch break. If you don't mind having a laptop in front of you while you unwind and watch TV at night, filling out a survey or two can be done between commercials.
Pay ranges from anywhere to $5 - $50 a survey, which is typically determined on the length of time it takes you to complete the questionnaire. Once you get bored with those, there are options to get paid to watch movie trailers, and some times you can have a little fun by getting paid to test drive cars.
As long as you are at least 18 years old, anyone can start making money by filling out surveys right away. It's a great way to put extra cash in your pocket and cover basic living expenses. After all, who wouldn't want a couple hundred dollars a day just for giving their opinion?
See if you qualify to join the highest paying surveys program available. Only a limited number of people will be accepted to work with the biggest brand names that pay top dollar. Get your chance to earn hundreds of dollars with paid survey review.
To find out more, you can go to
>>>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
May 7, 2015 1:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Many people want to make money at home and they want to find a work at home job to do it with. Ultimately what happens is they become frustrated as they search from website to website looking for the right job. This brings up the question, why are work at home jobs so hard to find? In this article we will take an honest look at this problem.
1. First of all you should know that most of the opportunities to work at home are not actually paid jobs. This is true because most employers do not know you and have no control over the work environment when you do it from the comfort of your own home.
If you realistically think about this, why would someone pay you an hourly rate when they do not know if you are really working or not? Therefore many of the opportunities to work at home are actually in the form of business opportunities where you work for yourself.
2. There really are some companies looking for people to work from home. This phenomenon is known as telecommuting and does provide an opportunity for people with legitimate skills to get paid working from home.
This benefits both the company and the worker because the business does not need to provide a space for you to work from, and as an employee you do not have to get up and drive to work every day.
Many companies now will offer work at home jobs that include an hourly rate and benefits. These benefits can include paid vacation, retirement plan, and health insurance.
One such website or you can visit is Tjobs.com. They match employers looking for workers with employees who are looking for opportunities to telecommute. This works out very well for people who have skills such as sales, customer service, website design, and other categories.
3. Another thing I want to talk about is websites that present themselves as work at home jobs doing data entry, taking paid surveys, and typing at home. Generally these websites are trying to sell you information on how to get involved in this type of work.
There are companies who will pay you for your opinion, or to do data entry and typing. The websites that are selling you the information deserve to be paid because they have taken the time to develop a list of companies for you to contact.
In the future work at home jobs will become more readily available. Until that point you need to be conscious and only deal with reputable companies before spending any of your hard earned money.
To learn more about the top paid survey sites please visit: http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
May 15, 2015 5:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
NATASHA
what are your problems? do you have trouble, problems in your marriage?
do you have fight with your ex? are you in trouble of debt? are you lust
what are those things killing your happiness, making you so unhappy? you
don't have to worry no more because we have got a quick way in solving
problems.
ATTENSIONS
readers please beware that spel caster are everywhere fake looking for
whom to scam i was scammed 4good times with different ones, i almost
gave up to the ghost because i was in trouble of debt and also my
husband was about to leave me and my children before i met micsuca.
MICSUCA
IS A PROPHET who also believe in jai mata durga. goddess of india
mom of the world. here is his email [email protected], i contacted
when i was in so much pains and sorrow among all he was the only
person who genuinely helped rostore my home also payed my debt.
feel safe and happy only with micsuca anything you need shall be
gven unto your desires,thanks to you master, father of the world
praise be you, thanks guys for your understanding. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
May 26, 2015 6:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am pro beauty and pro femininity. I wear some make up myself. This author does not understand women. I wear it for myself. Yes, I wear it for the joy of it, not so much for men. I love men, love to attract them but women really do wear make up mostly for their own pleasure, joy and self expression. It's uplifting to look better. It's really fun to wear lipstick for some women (myself included).
The author seems to feel that "if wearing make up not for men makes you feel better about yourself, you don't have a sense of self".
Ridiculous. I have a strong sense of self and that is why I wear make up that I enjoy and gives me pleasure.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
May 27, 2015 2:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey there! You might want to start here. It is a few pages back in the category thread "narcissism." By all means, take as much time as you can in that wordy-realm.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 28, 2015 4:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hello to the people of this forum
email [email protected]
web abuluspiritualtemple.webs.com
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
June 22, 2015 4:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Caitlyn Jenner wasn't a woman until Vanity Fair says she is.
Millions of American woman don't feel they're 'pretty' until a magazine says they are. (Or aren't, as is the case.) _ Same effect.
http://monstrousreprobate.blogspot.com/2015/06/vanity-fair-grants-caitlyn-jenner-title.html
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
August 3, 2015 8:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I appreciate that you have raised a this topic. I truly believe this and every people should believe the article that you have raised.
lifecell all in one anti aging cream
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
August 5, 2015 5:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
GREAT ILLUMINATI TEMPLE Of MONEY AND POWER,
JOIN THE ILLUMINATI CALL+2348105578036 OR info. [email protected]
Are you a business man or woman, political, musician, student,
the you want to be rich, famous, powerful in life, join the Illuminati brotherhood cult today and get instant rich sum of. 1million dollars
in a week, and a free home. any where you choose to live in this world and also get 10,000,000 U.S dollars monthly as a salary...
BENEFITS GIVEN TO NEW MEMBERS WHO JOIN ILLUMINATI.
A Cash Reward of USD $900,000 USD
A New Sleek Dream CAR valued at USD $800,000 USD
A Dream House bought in the country of your own choice
One Month holiday (fully paid) to your dream tourist destination.
One year Golf Membership package
A V.I.P treatment in all Airports in the World
A total Lifestyle change
Access to Bohemian Grove
Monthly payment of $8,000,000 USD into your bank account every month as a member
One Month booked Appointment with Top 5 world Leaders and Top 5 Celebrities in the World. If you are interested call the agent now +2348105578036 or send your e-mail to [email protected] for immediately initiation.New members registration is now open online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
August 7, 2015 7:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
In almost all parts of the world the society has been patriarchal. This means that women have often been at a less privileged position than men in terms of social status. This is evident in all spheres of life from political, corporate to even religious leadership circles. Recently, however, more opportunities are available to women. The challenge is that many women may not be able to access them due to lack of the necessary qualifications.
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
August 7, 2015 7:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice post!
college paper writing service
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Comments