The Results become Variables.

Problems with Scientific Epistemology (Positivism.).

I was lying in bed pondering an important decision. Ought I to invite Candace to dance with us at Stampede? She had all ready hinted that she wanted to see me again at Somewhere Loud, roughly a fort-night following our initial and dynamic meeting.

Obviously impulses were in favour of seeing her again. I had all ready texted her later the same night that she surprised me with a call. The following night, prior to the day of judgement, I found a song by Ciara. It was entitled Dance like We are Making Love. Ciara had matured. Of course if the song had not reminded me of Candace it was because its sub•conscious impetus had been her to begin with.

As the proper decision literally Dawned upon me I felt compelled instinctively to look upon the window at the front of my house, from the inside of my room.
It was as though the Sun had entered in. Apollo his self strode in with the authority of Hestia.

And I was reminded of how I had come to dis•possess my self of my Positivistic Idols in late Two Thousand and Thirteen.
Nietzsche had proclaimed that Dialectic destroyed philosophy. To be a reductionistic empiricist (as opposed to a radical one) one must lay 'both sides' against the same ruler to measure which is longer. Which is the leg? Which is the hypotenoose? Had it been true that contemplating the lesser of the two options and the greater of the two evils I had failed to look to that same window, I should have to totally ignore Apollo's Visit.
Given the sheer madness of that prospect I must forget it upon thought of it.

Re-creating the initial contemplation of the lesser path would have been just as fruit less. One cannot step in to the same river twice.
The archaic superstition of science is in that one could theoretically control one variable whilst allowing others to vary. This is insane. The authority leant to science is based upon the delusion that any two events could be 'repeated' and the reports believed upon the say-so of the participants, whose sole witnesses are usually their peers and whose rank determines their validity. This is atrocious.
No two thoughts can be repeated with the certainty that it had been so. At every moment the Sun sets. The leaves age. My memories mutate. Each attempt to repeat my initial ponderances are met with the brick wall of futulity, the hardened sediment of increasing self•consciousness piling up upon its self.

The ascetic ideal ruptures. With a force of Will I rise from bed and begin my walk to the bank. Along the way my eyes are seduced by Nature. A pine needle hanging from a branch tempts me, caressing my eyes remotely. I must stop to photograph it as the Sun stands behind, Apollo peering through the brush. I never arrive at the Bank. The human world with its pretensions has little hold on me. It is a mere seat•belt in the roller coaster of Life.

And only the bastards that would have called her unwitting would believe in Science.

Dm.A.A.

The Spider-man is having you for dinner to•night.

I realised that I became de-sensitised to rape because the politically correct community only referred to it in the context of rage, condamnation, moralism, exaggerated claims, fear, and the intransparency that comes with being forbidden to speak about some thing that every one talks about. Dm.

Anarchy as Solution for Rape.

Anarchy as Solution for Rape.

The problem with all attempts to legally regulate rape is that they require that we use Reason, but really what prevents us all from sexual violence towards one an other (and this would have to extend to moral violence, even towards people who are sexually violent) is Intuition.

1.       Language does not have a stable meaning; Derrida demonstrated the ways in which its meanings can and are differed.

a.       The alternative to this view is Linguistic Fascism, which is metaphysically naive.

2.       Human promiscuity occurs on a spectrum.

a.       Multiple women (and apparently some men) attest to (favourable*) fantasies of sexually deviant behaviours that involve being surprised and even sexually assaulted.

                                                              i.      This is of course not at all an unrealistic allegation, however deplorably unrealistic a fantasy in our still sexually priggish culture.

                                                            ii.      I should remind that Maslow indicated that the healthy growth and development of an individual depends upon breaking out of one’s culture.

                                                          iii.      Our culture is in decline.

                                                           iv.      Our culture is not progressing. Progressivism is the delusion of a degenerate culture.

                                                             v.      Huxley agreed to Maslow’s ideal.

                                                           vi.      In so far as our culture is binding upon individuals it is destructive and morally reprehensible.

                                                         vii.      I as an individual by virtue of Fact 2.a.vi do not need to provide a warrant for this fact.

                                                       viii.      [ By virtue of Fact VII, I do not need to provide a warrant for the tautology.

                                                           ix.      Most profound matters are reducable to Tautology, because exquisite ideas comprise systems that tend to be cyclical.

                                                             x.      Not all tautology is precise. ]

b.      *All though theoretically it is much too dualistic of me to specify this.

c.       That some women want to be caught unawares is evidence of a lingering hope for the Noble Savage to re-emerge as an ideal in our society.

                                                              i.      The Noble Savage is going extinct because of technological culture.

                                                            ii.      The Noble virtues of the Noble Savage:

1.       Capacity towards spontaneity.

a.       As social networking and law become intertwined it is exceptionally difficult to be spontaneous.

b.      Excessive defensiveness and self-conscious engender paranoia.

c.       One tends to hold others to the same Fascistic standards as one holds one’s self in order to justify one’s own cynicism.

d.      The self-conscious individual is a product of power structures. (Foucault.)

2.       Lack of dependency upon Reason. Greater trust of Intuition.

a.       This means a lesser dependency upon Directed Thought (language) and a greater sensitivity towards the world as it presents its self immediately (instinct and Non-directed or Visionary Thought).

b.      A greater appreciation for Nature, in the broadest sense, including the sense that one is an expression of one’s own environment.

c.       A lesser dependency upon the rules of others.

d.      A lesser tendency to USE symbols to rationalize behaviour which is intuitively cruel and self-serving.

3.       Lesser notion of “selfhood”.

a.       Greater empathy; chance to communicate non-verbally with all the Natural World as Thou, not It.

b.      Genuine Self as opposed to egoic self-conception as created by consumerist culture.

c.       Fun loving; tendency towards relatively harmless fun.

                                                          iii.      Individuals who want to be assaulted are in love with the intuitive danger that we left behind in our dying jungles. They are followers of Dionysus and visionaries who have not lost their touch with their animal natures. These are capable of genuine compassion. To them self-interest is non-existent, and their bodies have been made available for Life to make what use it wants of, not as property. They are the least objectified, for they refuse to objectify their selves. Their existence is purely subjective.

d.      The prevalence of sub-cultures such as Bondage and Sodomy and Rave are further evidence of this regressive habit.

                                                              i.      Of course, I use “regressive” favourably, and I use “favourably” without any derision.

                                                            ii.      Bondage and Sodomy takes the conservative approach, simulating these circumstances in exceptionally controlled circumstances.

                                                          iii.      Rave takes the more feminine approach, lending women authority on the dance-floor. Some of the most powerful women on the floor tend to want their partners to “just go for it” in approaching them and initiating physical contact.

e.      Our culture is becoming increasingly compassionate towards forms of sexual deviation.

                                                              i.      Were rape culture regarded as a culture with its own reciprocity, it would be accorded the dignity of the Homosexual Community, et al.

                                                            ii.      Currently, there is no place for these deviants to safely practice their preferences.

                                                          iii.      The imprisonment and worse the shaming of these deviants, in reckless and naive pursuit of partners, is akin to discrimination (structural violence) in the former case and hate crimes in the latter case.

                                                           iv.      These people are accorded Shadow projection as the scape-goats of our consent-normative, technological society.

                                                             v.      The worst violence tends to be towards people that we project our own repressed negativity upon, even when they have not done us or our loved ones DIRECT harm.

                                                           vi.      Of course as ALL WAYS the answer for why “rape culture” is leant a negative (and by negative I mean “unfavourable”, or derisive, connotation) is that we have FORGOTTEN THE FEMININE. People tend to imagine it, surely, to be patriarchal, but in fact men simply have to initiate contact in relationships of these sort. But WOMEN are in fact essential to this culture as participants full of regrettably unrequited longing in the status quo.

3.       Given how ambiguous rape truly is given all these variables, it is incredible that civilization even developed. In part I suppose that the Judeo-Christian ethic was a stepping stone towards the civilized state, but was a step up all so a step ahead, or are we climbing a ladder that is bending in on us?

4.       It is incredible that on the dance floor, in the bed-room, and just in general we manage to live in more or less harmony. Only our problem-solving mind over-looks this Glorious Harmony that does not change over time. (Watts.)

5.       We should work to cultivate awareness of this Harmony in the further development of our civilization. The Intuition is what tells us: I do not want to be violent. But it has been so debased that even people crusading against sexual violence, using the umbrella term “rape” indiscriminately and hate fully, use violence in their rhetoric, shouting “rape!” in order to silence all dissent. As though Silence were Dissent.

6.       Our vilification of Silence as Consent, et al, are all evidence of our dwindling Intuition and Empathy. I mean, this is obvious: We are constantly over-stepping boundaries that we cannot even imagine simply by the act of living. I can say just from my own experience that even doing Nothing can un-nerve people. If we are to survive ethnic tension, we must embrace what S. Kierkegaard said: All offense is a failure to comprehend the Paradox. Of course, this is in no way a form of Relativism that pardons genuinely selfish or violent behaviour. But it IS an attitude of recognizing Intent and Intentionality, Intuitively, out-side of and prior to any ideological consideration. At times, the Paradox DOES inform us in the form of negative feelings that compel our discretion. But that is not the same as an offence to our ego, except in the sense that our ego is subsumed by new information from the Self. (Jung.) The negativity here is authentic because it brings out a deeper aspect of the Self, rather than being just a reaction on the part of the ego to an Absurd situation.

This compels us as individuals in a collective to acknowledge that we cannot hide in Silence as though it made us perpetual victimhood. In the same way that we are morally obligated to SPEAK OUT against violence, we must be held responsible for our passive aggression, that kind people will tend to presume the best in the face of the Nothing, that Silence that unifies us all but that because it is FEMININE  it is repressed in our patriarchal society, and we must not be allowed to condemn people that we had miss-led with our silent non-verbals, an astute manipulative technique that debaters know because they often abuse the imagination by saying “I never said that” as though they were not OBLIGATED to speak out against oppression in the same way as it is the responsibility, in an environment where in people expect you to “just go for it”, one MUST use one’s ability to say “No” in order to ward off a silent suitor, for he (or she) too is acting out of an ethical obligation. After all, our responsibility is not only towards the self, with a lower-case “s”. Life demands that each day we do some thing frightening, slaying the dragons of “Thou Shalt”, and judging by our own ecstasy and rapture that we have fully lived and exposed our selves to Life in such a way that it would breed compassion and comprehension in our hearts.

Obviously, so long as there is no violent repression in a given circumstance, the ability to say “No”, to disconfirm, is not taken away. But with freedom comes responsibility. We must choose yet again either freedom or Fascism. Wittgenstein said, Of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent. By the same token, of which one CAN speak, one MUST. One is never a victim so long as both the capacity to remain silent, as a way of communication, that very repressed feminine Nothingness that we so hate, and one’s masculine capacity to raise one’s voice, are intact. And if sexuality is ineffable, a true consummation of spiritual energies, then perhaps we ought NOT to feel obligated to objectify one another with words, forgetting our hidden spiritual kinship, which consumer capitalism in its neurotic competitiveness all ways tries (much too successfully) to hide.

7.        Most people have the Intuitive Empathy to know when they have harmed an other. Yet so long as we live too much in the world of law and symbols we lose this capacity, and we are capable time and again of incredible cruelty by rationalizing away our humanity with WORDS. So long as those Words are not their selves advocates for Silence, they are not Masculine, but Patriarchal by definition. And the conditioned ego caught in this web of power is over-whelmed and traumatized at the earliest instance. Maybe there is no such thing as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Salinger seemed to hate this habit of labeling psycho-analytically “neuroses”. Maybe he did NOT “have” some thing, but he simply saw more deeply into the Void – the Nothing, the Silent – than most of us. Is it unbelievable?

Dm.A.A.

Let’s Play: Spot the Fallacy.

Let’s Play: Spot the Fallacy.

1.       Premise One: Marxism justifies rape.

2.       Premise Two: Rape can never be justified.

3.       Conclusion: we must not be Marxists.

Response:

1.       Premise One and Premise Two are mutually exclusive.

a.       Premise One justifies rape. This renders the justification of rape a possibility. Premise Two denies this possibility.

                                                              i.      Marxism was established by us as a Should.

                                                            ii.      Should implies Can. (Rawles.) If we SHOULD be Marxists, then we CAN be Marxists.

                                                          iii.      If being Marxist justifies rape, either inevitably or incidentally, then it CAN be justified. If it could not, that would only be because we could NOT be Marxists, a condition that would pre-clude the possibility, at least by this avenue of reasoning.

2.       Premise one never passes judgement upon Rape, because it is merely an End. It never passes judgement upon Marxism, which remains an imperative Means.

3.       Premise two only passes judgement upon Rape, as an End. It never passes judgement upon Marxism, as a Means.

a.       The Means all ways justify the Ends. (Frankl.)

b.      The Ends never justify the Means.

4.       The Conclusion is there by arbitrary.

Dm.A.A.

The Disadvantages of Anti-Rape Rhetoric.

The Disadvantages of Anti-Rape Rhetoric.

1.       Anthropocentric. A.R.R. pre-disposes us towards condemning all forms of life that do not have our sexual habits (by our definition) and that do not APPEAR (to our frame of reference) to possess a language and culture that qualifies for “consent” within our culture.

2.       Ethnocentric. A.R.R. pre-disposes us towards condemning all cultural paradigms, indiscriminately, that do not have our sexual habits.

a.       This is not a relativist position. We need discrimination in cultures.

b.      By condemning all cultures that dis-agree with our illusory standards we are indiscriminate in our prejudices.

3.       Shadow Projection. Much of this rhetoric is violent and can only be symptomatic of an impulse to condemn an aspect of the repressed self.

4.       Anti-progressive. If the New Agers are right, the whole notion of the individual, with its “own self-interest”, its “own body and possessions”, and its “personal space” will eventually disappear, if all goes well. The only threat to this is violence, and there can be no question that people who crusade against rape are possessed of violent and fanatical urges. This is evidenced by their inability to provide warrants.

5.       Absolutistic. So let me get this straight. If I do some thing in California, it is a crime against Humanity, but if I do it in a state with a lower age of consent, or a more lenient alcohol tolerance, I am justified. Well DAMN does that ring of Nationalism and Fascism. Nationalism because one has determined one’s sanctity by borders, and Fascism because there is an implicit belief in an Absolute that ultimately must triumph over all deviations from it.

6.       Ultra-Pragmatic. Of course, if one uses the scare tactic of threatening rape then one is condemned as a terrorist. Are our opponents any different? If one PRESUMES it to be the worst fate, then Marx’s Deontological Imperative of abilities and needs can be skewed to sound like “rape rhetoric”, in conjunction with Nietzsche’s view of ability as the Will to Power and Maslow’s view of sexuality as a “need”. But this is just Totalitarianism. Yet if one PRESUMES starvation to be worse, the consideration is reversed. Rape can be a justified end in such a case of which the attempt to make people feel more entitled to their own needs, sufficiently that they might rebel against the State, as the radical Marxist means. Just to cite one hypothetical instance. To say “Rape is never justified”, as though to say it “CAN never be justified”, is blatantly hegemonic. All that it does is that it threatens people from following their ethical DUTY (such as to provide for one an other’s needs) because, by their own admission, it MAY PRODUCE this out-come as a by-product. This is utterly intolerable to the rational mind.

In place of condemning “undesirable ends” we have instead to focus on Means. What are the MOTIVES for a given act? Multiple motives may serve the same out-come, but the motive its self determines Guilt. Hence a warrant is necessary that the opponents may establish an ethical ground. Based upon this ground we might determine not only their standing but all so whether or not we agree and wish to be in good standing WITH them on this ground. Only then can we be said to be justified in our motives. And motives are the arbiter. A romantic who falls in love with a woman seven years his younger is divorced entirely in affect from a misogynist with a trouble childhood. A practitioner of Bondage and Sodomy that forgot to sign a paper and has a vindictive partner (which in a community that celebrates sadism and masochism is not unlikely) is not equal to a soldier that is an opportunist.

Can rape be justified? But of course! It is justified ALL THE TIME. It is not only justified in war, justified in prison, and justified in situations that reactionaries try to “level the playing field”. People JUSTIFY it by their own admission in condemning ideologies SUCH as Marxism by claiming it to LEAD to these ENDS by asking, “well what if what they want to be shared is the body?” This is by definition a justification. The argument is that “Marxism justifies rape.” Fair enough. We can live with that; the ends are non-unique, and the means are imperative. Only by claiming the ends to some how supercede the means can one engage in double think, saying, “our duty is to justify rape (as a by-product)”, and “Should Implies Can”, as Rawles attested, but rape can never be justified”. Try to figure THAT one out.

7.       Dangerously ambiguous and opaque. If no definition is provided for rape, how do I know where my healthy sexual appetites end and a crime begins?

a.       Even definitions are of course inert. I first encountered the word in a dictionary, and it meant to compel another to engage in sexual conduct against one’s own will. When two childhood play-mates, in an attempt to mock me for studying the patterns of snails migrating in their back-yard, arranged a cruel demonstration of human power by trying to force these snails to mate in a “marriage” (because as we all know “marriage is a right” and forcing life-forms to recognise this institution is ethically justified), I accused them loudly and exasperatedly of “raping” the snails. Was I wrong?

8.       Rape Apologetics. I mean, that feminists who crusade against rape are subtly advocating for it needs no more warrant than they seem to feel in justifying the position that rape is bad. Right?*

 *This is not of course to suggest that we do not have a file explaining this for people who want to be KNIT-PICKY.

Dm.A.A.

My Deep Archer from Zizek.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGNLj8P59dk

For the first time I must dis-agree with Zizek. Playing devil's advocate is precisely the way that one not only enflames sentiment (much like Zizek's precious "racist jokes", which all most certainly enflame some people), but it all so exposes one's true intentions. As Nietzsche (admittedly of a school distinct from Zizek's field of study) said: Distrust all those in whom the will to punish is great. I know from having participated in College Debate that people not only use "rape" (which in California now has actually become an ambiguous term owing to the flowing of political correctness into the legal system and the passing of some ridiculous laws under feminist auspices) and "feminism" (both interchangeably and together) as impenetrable (no pun intended) barriers to discussion that renders the community at risk from proto-Fascism because people are afraid to condemn feminism, but all so in many instances the very style of rhetoric is all so blatantly violent. And yet they get away with it, even as they argue against violence, without a second thought to their logical consistency! So obviously there is no longer a discussion at hand here. The best arbiter would be to ask: "Well now what is the WARRANT for why rape is bad?" It throws people, but it forces them to examine the fact that even though their position APPEARS ubiquitous, they cannot find a single argument for it, because in fact they are engaged in the kind of violent thinking that they are condemning. Dm.A.A.

Yes. I would love it if all people "woke up" and realised that there is no such thing as Racism or Sexism because both of these are reifications based upon logocentric readings of history.

But we all have to lower out standards.

Zizek can idealise all he wants. I have been so shocked personally by just the stupidity of college kids that I am past the point of taking these "real problems" seriously. WHY SO SERIOUS?

Dm.A.A.

Transcendance as a central value criterion in regard to Silence as Consent.

“Dasein is not only in the world of Beings, the plentitude of Beings; it is all so held out into the Nothing. This is the condition of our Freedom, this is the condition of our Knowledge, this is our condition of Our relations as Dasein WITH the others kinds of Beings. Like he says: without the original revelation of the Nothing, no Selfhood and no Freedom.

This is all so what allows us to have Transcendance. WE transcend BEINGS. NOTHING all so transcends Beings. All So: when we Experience Transcendance, we are all ways going to be *tempted* to turn that transcendence into a kind of Being or configuration of beings. And as soon as we do that, it loses its character of transcendence, which needs to be held out into the Nothing, and becomes Something.”

Gregory Sadler in a lecture on Heideggerean metaphysics.

Dm.A.A.

A Children's Tale.

A Children's Tale.

Once there was a young girl with beautifull blonde hair. She was very pretty, but in a way that was different from how other girls were pretty. One day she met a boy that instantly fell in love with her.
Now this boy obviously liked her a lot, but he remembered what some wise grown-ups said once to him about girl: Do not rush.

He did not know WHY they told him not to rush, but it felt right so he listened • He waited for a month before going to her home and ringing her door-bell. She agreed to hang out and play with him and his best friend. He had known his best friend for five years. He was incredibly happy, looking for-
ward to showing his best friend the pretty girl he found and loved.

But when he introduced the girl to his best friend, the girl liked the boy's best friend more than she liked the boy • The boy felt this to be true, but he did not think much of it. He knew that his best friend would be loyal, and they would all have a good time. Besides: He knew that he loved the girl, and she loved him. How else could she have known he loved her, if he could not know she loved him? She did not have

special powers he did not, and besides he made sure to make it Øbvious to her that he loved her. He did not know YET that she knew, but he knew that it would be a matter of time before they discussed it.
Besides: If he loved her, she must love him, for why else would he feel such a way?
It would only be fair.

Imagine the boy's disappointment when he saw the girl ignore him.
She only wanted to talk to his best friend and play with him. The boy did not worry • He knew that the girl was just shy. And his friend was being nice. He knew that his friend was just trying to cheer her up and make her feel well come. His best friend had the boy's best interests at heart. He wanted the boy to be happy. He wanted them all to have a good time.

Or so he thought.

The next day, the boy's best friend and the girl got to-
gether to play.
The best friend invited the boy, but the boy got the funny feeling that the best friend did not really want the boy to play with them • The boy brushed it off. He knew that his best friend was loyal. Or so he thought.

The boy that day had to help some younger kids play a game.
So he let his best friend hang out with the beautiful blonde girl alone.

Two days later, the boy de-
cided to invite both of his friends, his best friend and the girl, to his parents' house.
He still lived at home because he was a kid, though some times grown ups still live with their parents too.

Imagine the boy's disappointment.
Rather than the three of them having fun, the girl and the best friend were mean to him.
When ever he tried talking to the girl, she started talking to his best friend, or other wise she only spoke in small sentences and like she was not interested at all.
When he tried talking to his best friend, he too either ignored him or shot down every thing the

boy said. When the boy expressed a point of view, saying what be thought was true, or telling them an idea, his best friend only told him he was wrong. But when the girl said what SHE thought, his best friend all ways agreed with him! And when the boy tried to talk about some thing with the girl, hoping they might Both agree on some thing,
again she would say some thing short,
like she did not want to talk to him, and look away • Usually at his best friend.

They went out side to play.
But rather than playing to -
gether, the best friend and the girl only talked to one an other! They did not so much as look at the boy!
So finally the boy sat down on a bench. He had a nose bleed. His head was spinning.
They did not care. And he watched them walk away.

Part of the boy's mind said:
This is not right. This can't be happening. She loves me. And he is my best friend.
But an other part said:
You should have known. He likes her • She likes him. You love her.
But she does not love you.
And then a third voice said:
He betrayed me! He does not love her! He stole her away! And he likes her more than he likes me!
Even though he just met her.

The boy's 'best friend' did not turn out REALLY to be a (very good) friend at all •

They boy could have gone home.
But he loved the girl and cared about his best friend too much.
The first voice in his head still said: He will not do any thing •
So he found them. And he saw that they were holding hands.
They walked back to the boy's house, because they left their toys

out side it. They could tell that the boy was very sad. He was miserable! But the best friend was happy • And the girl did not seem to care.

They said to him: Good night!
as he closed his parents' gate behind him. He hesitated. Then the girl said: Thank you for inviting us! The best friend chuckled.
And the boy said: Sure. He turned

to go home, and the last thing that he heard from them that night was laughter.
He knew that they were laughing at him. What could be so funny? That he was feeling worse than he had ever felt before in his life?
Even if they did not know it,
or would not admit it, they were laughing in spite of him, and there fore at him.

[end of chapter•]

*Ch. II.*

The boy never talked to his 'best friend' again. After a while,
the best friend stopped playing with the girl. The girl got mad because he did not love her.
She thought at first that boys were just naturally like him: They tended to be more interested in toys than in girls, and they only played with girls when they felt like it • But then she real-
ised the best friend never loved her.

She felt awful • She never felt this bad before in her life.
Or at least not so often.
She had been happy for a while • Or at least she thought she was. Before she met either of the two boys she wanted to run away or to jump off a building • She thought that the boy she chose, the best friend, would make her happy. So she did not want to

do those awful pointless things for a while. She tried to make the best friend happy so that he would love her. But it was no use. Even if he was happy with her he did not love her. At best she felt like she was just one of his toys. She felt bad that she had not chosen the other boy, the one that she first met • Then she wondered why she liked

his best friend so much. She figured that God or some one else wanted her to choose him. And then she got angry at the first boy not for warning her! But then how could he? He thought that his best friend would not hold her hand. How could he have known? But she did not know this. How could SHE have known?

She figured that the boy did not warn her and that she chose his best friend for the same reason: *God* or some other force WANTED her to choose him.
And she hated the first boy for trying to change her mind. She hated him for blaming the best friend. If SHE made the right choice, why was his best friend to blame? The best friend must have been perfect for her. But why did he not love her? She

could not understand it.
Again she felt miserable.
She wanted to die again.

[end of chapter ii•]

*Ch • III •*

The best friend did not understand what he had done wrong • HE had liked her • She liked him. What did it matter if she wanted to hold HIS hand,
and not his friend's?
He thought of what his Mother would say: She did not Have

to hold the first boy's hand. Of course. And since the boy's Mother was his only authority on what any one HAD to do or not to do,
he believed her. But did his former friend HAVE to still be his friend? It did not make sense. He could not figure it out. Why did he feel like he had done some thing wrong?
His 'best friend' was mad at him.
Was he right? It did not occur to him that his best friend did not

HAVE to NOT be mad at him. His feelings of being mad and hating him were at least just as real as the liking that the second boy felt for the girl, wanting to play with her and hold her hand. And they were just as real as the girl's feelings, especially when she chose to hold the boy's hand. So who was right? And why the fuss?

The boy's Mother could not answer that, so he decided to ask the Wisest Man he Knew. He visited the home of this kindly old man and his wife.

'Well, of course,' said the old man after the boy told him his story. 'He loved her. That was why he was unhappy. Did you KNOW that he loved her?'
'Yes,' said the boy. ' Well, all most.'

'Did you SEE that your friend was unhappy?'
'Yes,' admitted the boy,
frowning. Then he got an
idea: 'But she chose me!
Does that not make it
right?'
And the old man's wife laughed.
' If your mother had chosen
to hold your brother's hand, and not yours, would that be right?'

'No,' admitted the boy's best friend, even though he did not have a brother.

dm.*A.A.*

Final Atonement.

Final Atonement.

Now that the bitterness has abated and I have filled up a third journal, I can live up to my own standards of altruism. I mean you no harm. Believe me.
But bless my scurrying mind for what I have come to realise.
I ought never to repress it. You ought never to condemn it.
And God Knows harm and pain are two different energies.

So if this hurts you, respect it.
As I respected deeply and with rapturous admiration YOUR apology for hurting ME.

You made a convincing but conniving (pardon me) case for saying that I OUGHT to hate you as well, or either hate neither of you. I loathe Nihilism and the Absurdity of it was too much at that moment. But I am calmer now. Pray you read this.

The truth is: From the perspective of the ego(ist), it makes sense. You both conspired and wounded me. But the greatest offense was that last night, a few nights ago, that you and I spoke. Your pro-
clamation seemed to sug-
jest that it was [for] selfish reasons solely that I hated him, and that I should treat you with equal scorn. Not true. When you finally see through (to) him, you shall

see that he hurt you more than either I did or than he helped you. THAT was why I hated him. For you. Because I loved you and I KNEW that he would disappoint you.
I mean you no harm. But understand now that while my use of 'I loved you' may burn your eyes, as though it were a selfish pro-clamation,
it is not so. I love you genuinely. You have no busi-

ness telling me that I never loved you because I suffered and I hated. I suffered for YOU,
not for my own pleasure. I hated the man who I knew would hurt you.

You have been so courageous.
You at least admitted to your insecurities to begin with.
I vow to protect you. From the emotional black holes.

Yes, a woman is innocent in whom she chooses. But by that same virtue she is not the moral arbiter. The man she chooses is. HER conscience deserves to be clean by the end of it. But where harm is dealt, blame must be attributed. I would rather blame Him than all the world that he poisoned you against.
Life is not Absurd. Only life with these self-destructive types.

So if you are innocent by de-
fault, and I am the victim,
then he is guilty. And my earlier point leads to the same path;
they converge on HIS villainy.
(fore give me.) He should have rejected you. It would have hurt you briefly, but in the long term we all would have suffered less. He could have re-
ferred you to the man who loved you. He could have con-
vinced you with that same sway that he

had over you. He could have made a case for me. I was his best and most loyal friend.
And yeah. He could have mentioned that.

When two men love the same woman and they are best friends, it is a tragedy. That he could put me through such pain and feel such joy was a sociopathic symptom.
Empathy and the Golden Rule

both would have told him:
Now you would not want to watch her go off with some one else, would you? How could you put your best friend through that? Had he presumed that I did not care as much for you, it was absolutely arrogant. I never made that presumption;
I knew it. He had only known you for three days. And the following weeks demonstrated that I was empirically correct.

If he knew that I loved you and he presumed my feelings to be of no consequence, it would have been both socio-
pathic AND arrogant of him.
And if he had truly loved you, he would have seen the tragedy of it. That he expected me to pardon him is evidence that he did not.

What a nice day. I love San Diego. You are really an embodi-

ment of all that I love about it.
If you'll pardon the object-
ification.

XOXOXO,
___Dmitry.

Feminism and the Bro Code. Part Two.

Feminism and the Bro Code. Part Two.

You know: I am beginning some what to empathise with that fellow who shot up that sorority. His METHODS I dis-confirm, but in terms of ethos he might have been on to some thing. What did I get from his ultimatum? Nothing more or less than a violent tirade against feminine entitlement. The notion that regardless of ethic one's emotions can be relied upon to guide one's actions. I kind of loathe society my self, but only for treating Caliban as a scape-goat. But now here is a question for our feminist friends: can you imagine any thing more dangerous nor more deplorable than a patriarchal man who is ruthless, self-serving, unabashedly power-hungry, with out conscience or alibi, manipulative, domineering, and worst of all both horny and did I mention power-hungry and megalomaniacal? Now think for a bit. Okay. Nothing worse? Fair game. Now look at your average female of college age. Apparently one in four of them are sexually assaulted. Is it that MOST men are patriarchal pigs? How did this become the masculine standard? Surely by now most men would have learned that it is only the noble gentleman, the unremitting altruist, the man of Character, the knight of chivalry and loyalty, that shall claim the maiden for his own?

Or is that a bit dated? May be it is rather that Nice Guys Finish Last. May be so long as women recklessly fall for arrogant jocks without rational consideration for their own projections and neuroses, nor for the social consequences of their emotivism, then men will only be incentivised to be cruel, rude, (though pretending towards sweetness where they are so clever and where they can flatter in place of being truthfull), unabashedly selfish in the company of their peers and the total opposite of the veneer they present to their female admirers, thus estranging the two genders entirely in what Reality Its Self appears to be, manipulative and moralistic to cover their ruse and their tracks, though never truly moral at all. Is it any surprise then that the rates of rape are so high? May be then that fellow who shot those girls truly WAS a martyr. But of course I am an optimist. I do not truly think that most men are like that. I have too much faith in man. So from whence do the reports come? Are they valid? Or are most of them exaggerated? Our buddy the serial killer shot a bunch of women that he deemed 'sluts'; he did it when they were convened in private. There is all ways some thing that we can LEARN from serial murderers. I mean: we MUST! They are the Shadows of our own society, and invariably informants of what we TRULY need to work on in our evolution, not to hide and say 'it was just HE who did it.' The reason that Deleuze ascribes to such tragedies the shame in being a man is that they call upon us all to cha(lle)nge the status quo. We are all connected deep down. And in that same interview with his petite amie he speaks of his own triumphs. How do we make the most therefore of tragedies? We Learn. And an ultimatum and a manifesto lay it RIGHT out in front of us in plain logic, a mirror for the common sense of our time taken to its natural and pathological conclusion and extreme. What have we learned? Well the kid shot them not only because they were women. He shot them because they were CONVENED. The bastard pragmatist would dismiss this as purely strategic; of course, they were easy prey. But WHY are those who convene easy prey? Are they easier than the solitary rape victim? The former are easy by law of nature. In the same way as there is strength in numbers there is danger in them. The lone wolf at least knows one's own dangers; her only risk is of losing her self in solitude and distrust, of being consumed in her own cynicism and becoming the oppressor. It is right that a bunker of Nazis should blow up and deal a more lethal blow than had the officials just Skyped their meeting. People who live by the herd die by the herd. And people who decide together that their affects matter more than the standards of decency created by their fathers pose a threat not only to would-be fathers but to all. It is this tendency that compells men to become tyrants. This emotive herd mentality is a breeding ground only for Fascism, and Fascists love to elect a leader who is charismatic and appeals to nothing short of the desire of a woman for a bad boy and the desire of a man for a rugged role model. And try to tell me that sex is not a motivator in politics.

Our society if it is to survive as a Free Society must shed its ideological pretensions. Feminism only leads to Fascism in a country like ours. We have as much equality as is humanly possible; fairness is an other issue. Fairness consists in giving each man his due. And of course I speak in the generic sense of the word man. But I all so speak in a kind of de facto solidarity with those men who WERE chivalrous and who found a world that not only dissatisfied them but condemned them because the true manipulators gave every thing with the semblance of virtue a bad name.

Men must again adopt chivalry and loyalty, and women must learn to recognise it by its fruits. The days of egoism and being rendered irrelevant and marginal by virtue of one's kindness are over. And this is NOT a statement of Moral Imperative alone. It is a statement of FACT. We shall not survive an emotivist society.

Dm.A.A.

Feminism and the Bro Code. Part One.

Feminism and the Bro Code. Part One.

Feminism is an ideology used by the female ego to justify poor behaviour. Contemporary feminist rhetoric just lends women arbitrary maxims idioms and pathos in order to secure the woman in a position of illusory entitlement. In this way women can use this rhetoric to justify amoral and at times immoral behaviour by pretending towards victimhood or asserting their own Will to Power as the audience turns a cheek to the corrupting influence of Power. She escapes moral retribution from the community and from the law (which ever would be appropriate in a given circumstance.). Like Estelle in Sartre's No Exit, she uses Romanticism to justify her own bad behaviour in ignorance of basic Moral Universals that would other wise burden her conscience, so she acts in bad faith and has dignity only so long as her audience corroborates her. Why should it? As one internet meme reads: my rights end where your feelings begin. We all know that Romanticism is a precursor to Fascism. That two individuals decide to consentually harm a third does not render the act in any way just; two wrongs do not a 'right' make. (So enough talk of 'inherent (a priori) rights' in such a case. We all know that Relativists only speak of Inherent Rights because Relativism cannot transcend the A Priori and be given flesh in mortal life.) Morality must come from Reason. It is to be INFORMED by affect, yes, but a balance of yang and yin, the masculine Reason and the feminine Affect, is essential, how ever dynamic and dymonik the balance may be. Emotions by their selves do not justify action; moral reasoning, COUPLED with pathos, does. Yet pathos is so radically subjective that it cannot be universalised without becoming Fascism. Or rarely so, for of course moral universals do exist. Yet they too are substantiated by Reason; affect only re-Veals them.

Feminism pre-disposes us to emotivism. Consider the example of two men who had ostensibly been best friends now in competition for a lover. Feminism dictates that the woman's choice is to be the just arbiter. Yet this be-smirches the entire notion of fraternal loyalty that defines a friendship: that friends must not be rivals in a zero-sum game decided by whim. That would render friendship meaningless and there by intolerable; pragmatism would lead us thus to simply treat all men as enemies inwardly and to PRETEND towards friendship outwardly. If the woman is innocent, by that same token her decision is not the Arbiter in whether or not what follows is morally justified or a destructive and amoral if not immoral affair. Her affects have no sway in this consideration; they are biases, and even if they are facts we cannot derive ethics from facts alone. That is a Naturalist Fallacy. If she is innocent, what ever she chooses is right For Her to Choose. This does not guarantee an out-come; it merely preserves her innocence in the attribution of blame. But by the same token that she is right no matter whom she chooses she is not the arbiter in a matter of right or wrong. Her decision is neutral; either way, she is ethical. But that does not entitle her to the outcome of her choice, and it does not therefore exempt other parties from blame simply because she FEELS that they ought NOT to be blamed and only has her desires and her sense of entitlement to back up this position. The arbiter is the man of her choosing. If he chooses her over his best friend, he will harm his friend and break a moral code so ubiquitous that over the course of human history it has rarely ever been broken except in times such as ours of moral decay. It is because it is so ubiquitous that we cannot provide any instances there fore of historical examples for it, because so rarely did it even need to be invoked in conversation in the wake of an offense. One does not betray one's friend for a mate. The way that this conflict of interests is decided is NOT by the whims of the woman but by a very care full and prolongued weighing of the hearts of the two men, to deem which of them actually loves her. Once this is clear to all involved no further conflict is necessary. The truly virtuous is chosen and the other admits that his desire was fleeting. Time alone usually settles this matter, and every one knows that impatience destroys even the most fated of relationships.

Thus feminism steers away from Love, either in the sense of fraternal love or marital love, and towards power, competitiveness, debauchery, decadence, lust, and insecurity. The spiritual dimensions are lost to the followers of this ideology who use it to justify such amoral behaviour, and only the three 'animal' chakras remain. Loyalty, Virtue, and Dignity, as well as a genuinely stable Commitment, can only occur with connection to the Higher Levels of not only (Moral) Reasoning but Consciousness. And of course one cannot hope to cheat and to have attained Marital Love without transcending first the rung of Fraternal Loyalty. And transcendance does not mean circumvention, but honoring the passion of brotherhood to the point that it burns to its own destruction. Were it never there, the moment of treachery would make it(s absence) obvious. What ever the bewitched woman might attest to in bias to her 'chosen' lover does not hold sway in what weighing these hearts endure in the after-math. As Jung said, speaking of a man and his Anima: The woman 'of his choice'. He HAD no Choice! He has been captur'ed.

Dm.A.A.

Sylver Lyning Part Two.

Just because I still care about your Life. He can do what he wants with his. But there is Potential in You that were I to pretend it had been projected I would have to admit to having wasted five months of my life. And that is too great an affront to my Heart's Validity.

So here's some wisdom:

We often fear our own mortality. Raphael did for some time. What's the point if every one dies?

Well, not every one. And this is not a cock and bull immortality story. The Truth: people will live on after you die. They will endure after your own private Universe caves in. Don't you realise it?; our egalitarian education compells us to see every one as equal. We over look there fore the subtle differences that WERE we to truly prize them we should See that each of us is God and Centre of one's own private Universe. And what forces unites this multiverse of people is a deeper and may be less human mystery.

The point: begin to plan for what you leave behind. For if your plan for dealing with death is that of acting as though life and the future had no special merit, then I hate to tell you but when that wave comes you won't be ready for it. What leant me that authority? What leant you the authority to deny it? I see older folks who were cruel and miserly shake before that tide.

But you will not dive under it. You will Ride it. YOU shall conquer it. I know it. I have seen and guaged the frail hearts. But they could never make me suffer as you have. And I suffered for YOU. Now THAT is Love. Not to be happy for an other person. But to be miserable, especially knowing that she will die and in the mean time she wastes her time on the weak. But you will make the most of this time you have spent. You are not weak. You are NOT.

If I deserve no credit for having made you happy, then I cannot be charged with either your misery nor blamed for mine own.

But this is not about me.

It is about you.

You have some thing in-

Dispensable to render to the world.

*I* can sense it. YOU can sense it.

And THAT will, if you do not wait too long, endure beyond your Death.

And if the Death of one person is the Death of a Universe, then do not enter-

tain the illusion that we all die in the end and that as Prince Hamlet intuited it all ends in dust as the ambivalent Universe swallows its self.

YOU are that Universe. And it us YOU that shall choose either ambivalence or Glory.

And if the fruits of your labours are enjoyed by your progeny, then can they be said to be temporary?

Fear not. They will not live on merely until the End of the Universe. They shall sur-Pass it!

My prayer is that this re-

Solves your Cognitive Dissonance

a tad.

DM.

Sent from my iPhone

Trial by Marriage. PART TWO.

It appears exceptionally peculiar that in a community where in the actual stressors betwixt the two genders is so stressed that the focus of marital life is up on the '(God-given)rights' of same-sex couples and not up the Responsibilities of heterosexual ones. Some how in the midst of all of this discussion the central factors are lost: One the one hand, the inherent ad-
vantages and virtues (as well as li-
abilities) of heterosexuality, and the importance that Responsibility plays in Freedom, and that Duty bears upon Right.

We diss-agree with the pro-
clamation that Marriage is a Universal Right. I might make the Claim that I have the right to be married to a certain woman,
but does that guarantee me this Fate? So long as she possesses and/
or is possessed by Free Will:
Not so.
But why shall I make that claim to have a right? What en-
titles me, after all? Clearly: It must be not only with in the realm of my Freedom and Poss-
ibility (the former an expression of Will and the latter of Instinct) but

it must be a Duty. To be ethically justified is to be ethically obligated,
for the border betwixt Desire and Need is illusory.

The advantages of Marriage as a responsibility betwixt a man and a woman rest in bridging the troubled, Hellish gap betwixt these two genders on planet Earth. THIS is the essence of the Duty and there by the Right; it is through this gauntlet that two must pass,
walking a-breast down the aisle towards this end less Trial, that society should feel oblig-

ated to acknowledge their partner-
ship publically. Raising children, man and woman indukt a new generation that will be immune in pre-
disposition from the neuroses and abuses of its pre-
decessor(s). Our progressive friends who be-wail the haunting spectres of rape culture, gender dis-crimination*, wage disparity, and spousal abuse should be thank full for the arrival-on-the-scene of a new breed of Ghost Busters.

*Not that dis-crimination is a patriarchal virtue; it is masculine. (Woodman.)

Now I have to ask you, ladies and gentlemen: which of you here are ready to make such a commit-
ment? Per chance that is like asking atribe of High School Students what they think of compulsory recognition of marriage license. It is much more taktfull to ask: Who hear
THINKS that there ARE people in this room who diss-
agree? To completely circum-
navigate the analogy:
Do you THINK that MOST AMERICANS are READY for such a Responsibility?

<Dm.A.A.>

The Bombing of Japan.(Have a nice rant.)

I don't know why my family bothers to talk during the soccer game. I cannot stand it. It was precisely what I got into an argument with Zac Sarachman and his pal
Kolby about when they watched videos of BioShock Infinite. I asked: is there a way to look at some thing without describing it? That is the principle of Zen and according to A.W. Watts the central principle of difference betwixt Eastern society and Western society. My parents and especially my brilliant sister should remember this from my Taoist period when I would go for long periods of time without talking except for basic necessities. At that time it would not be unreasonable for me to presume that if they persisted in talking it was solely because they hated me. Why do they want to miss the entire game by describing it? This was why I failed science classes in high school and could never allow my self to become a reporter. It is just such a LI3! Description. Such a lie. My ex could never under stand these moods I would get in to but her lack of comprehension went over my head. I mean: why miss the WHOLE game by living in a phantasy? I try so desperately to see some symptom of that lingering Zen talent in the Japanese team. But I cannot see it! Is it not there? Or have my parents submerged it? Some scientists; they do not realise that THEY are the variable that needs to be controlled for the experiment to work. Ultimately science is a history of hypocrisy. With the very moment that one assigns one's fantasies as a description to raw existence one changes one of the variables. Hum. And they said science first knew sin when the United States bombed Japan. Now Japan is bombing. And do they not realise the tragedy of it?

Dm.A.A.

The old gate.
A ball jumps in.
Fuck!

[Aphorisms:] Taking Advantage (#1) of Cat/Calling; Conservative Politicians.

Advantage of cat-calling: Honesty.
By socially restricting cat-calling, a physically harmless practice, one incentivises men* to be flirts and seducers,

(*And women!)

and Language becomes a tool in the arsenal of politicians. We all live in the world of seductive appear-
ances to the point that even Republican rhetoric begins to make sense.

dm.A.A.

The game of conservative politicians is to make the interlocutor feel like he is just as much of a heart-
less, self-serving, isolated and hypocritical bastard as is the conservative, and by so doing the politician looks as though he were less of one.
This is indistinct from the game of psychological Mani-
pulation, which of course some 'liberal progressives' engage in but through the more feminine art of affect rather than cleverness.
Thank fully, simple logic exposes

the fallacies of both parties, and Superior Intellect lays them both to shame, but only before a re-
fined audience. Each will play to the pit in her own ways,
and each will try to either corner the interlocutor( in the case of the conservative) or make him look like a fool before the crowd (in the liberal example) by demon-
Stration of one's own power,
drawing either on the force of the Dominator Culture that the conservative tries to defend or the Reactionary Leftism that the other tries to impose.

The real question is, apart from any serious concern for the matters at hand:
Are you claustrophobic or agoraphobic? The claustro-
phobe will easily fall prey to the cornering conservative,
and the agoraphobe will be unable to address a field of liberals under an end-
less sky, for fear that they will disperse and leave one alone in one's field.
As Marion Woodman attested,
both the Masculine AND the Feminine can be exceptionally cruel.

Dm.A.A.

Reduced to a Right: Why I am Opposed to the Federal Imposition of Gay Marriage. PART ONE.

Reduced to a Right: Why I am Opposed to the Federal Imposition of Gay Marriage.

That I am writing this should serve as evidence that in a mere five years I have come a long way from the typical left-

winger that I was in High School. According to the Political Compass Test, I am still a left-wing Libertarian (or ought I to say a Libertarian left-winger?),

landing dab in the middle of that quandrant with an other Russian man that I don’t recognise. For the most

part, I am just about two steps away from being a total Marxist Anarchist.

That being said, five years is a long time. It is long enough to see one’s adolescent Romantic illusions shattered. It is long enough to be involved in a corrosive friendship that ends in treachery. It is long enough to be fall into a deep, desperate, depraving and debilitating depression with only books on psychology to hold on to and lectures on philosophy to lend you a helping hand.

It was long enough, in short, to trace the neuroses of my life to a set of roots. I am no Freudian; that is, I do not blame my own parents for every thing. But that some of my so-called friends suffered un-

estimable challenges as the result of THEIR troubled home life, and many of them lacked the Natural Strength of character to surmount these goals, stares me immanently in the face and sways me more than the glances of any progressive crowd unified in their Romanticism like a Fascist up-

rising.

I am no less generous or altruistic than I was in High School. I am simply more mature. Quite apart from having become jaded and bigoted – having ‘gone over to the Dark side,’ so to speak – I have become an even more tireless idealist. Before, my idealism had sprouted from entitlement; I EXPECTED the world to be fair and condemned the hate full bigots that just ‘did not get it’.

Sure: You can get married.

And I’ll get married. And we’ll all find the loves of our lives,

for God (though I was an agnostic then) wants us to be Happy, and men aren’t going to fuck this up for us, and we’ll all go to the beach and have a bon-fire. It was easy because I did not need to Think about it. I could just FEEL it.

Dm.A.A.

Who Gave Me the Right?

Having spent enough time about young, unread progressives, the word ‘right’ begins to sound like ‘the bones of a freedom once the Federal State has picked your Individual and State Freedoms clean.’ How this pertains to a Federal Man-date that subverts the religious stubborness and jihad (in the classic sense) of the States needs no elaboration. What is PARTICULARLY interesting is that it explains the classic progressive slur:

Who gave you the right? On the one hand, it reflects the brilliance of left-wing intellectualism; of course, one is not BORN with rights, and one must be Given them. On the other, it is an Orwellian testament to the totalitarianism of progressives:

WE give you your rights. If we are Believers, we speak for God in that He would not allow you to protest against us.

If we are Heretics, we can attest with Certainty that He is absent, and so You depend upon Us.

The reason that Marriage has been Reduced to a Right is that ‘rights’ are cheap. The word ‘right’ has lost its initial meaning, having become ‘a privilege re-enforced by authority.’

I may possess the Right to date my best friend’s girl covertly, my parents may possess the Right to evict me from their home, and if my behaviour is deemed eccentric by the community (which might pretend towards liberalism but cannot (under)stand a

true minority of one without the knee-jerk to oppress him) the Mental Health establishment may have the Right to take, as though in a game of Mono-

poly, (a game I incide-

ntally deplore) to take may of MY rights away.

But would any of these agents be Right in doing so? No. I do not think so.

What this recent legislation is an embarrassing revelation of what Alasdair MacYntire called the growing Emotivism of our present society. (if you will

pardon the careless, callous merger of the present and past tense.) Little thought is given to whether or not I Should use Google to get my information, though an exceptionally Clever case CAN be made against it. Rather, the United Nations, a conglom-

eration of politicians that are ungood by their own admission, (this has been the case since before Talleyrand I’m sure),

declare: The Internet is a

Basic Human Right! and so the youth proudly consume what ever comes up in the first three page results under every popular query, heed-

less of the literally atrocious fallacy of Mass-Mindedness and irresponsibility that they are volitionally sub-

ordinating their intelligences to.

Again, we are becoming emotivists. The question is no longer: Am I RIGHT to get married? Theologists would have posited that in terms of Divine Will and Secularists

In terms of Ethical Reason,

and which of the two is more meticulous may never be deter-

mined. NOW however the question is: Well is EVERY body doing it? Then it MUST be right! And if it MUST be right, then it must BE a right! And that means:

If I am excluded, I am wronged! So it is WRONG to deny me this *RIGHT*!

Right?

Wrong. And the Appeal to the Many is not only a fallacy but a Symptom Of Fascism.

Dm.A.A.