How to tell a Manipulator from a Gentleman. (or Lady.*)

How to tell a Manipulator from a Gentleman. (or Lady.*)

The thing about manipulative people is that they will call you out on your “contradictions”, but if you play close attention you shall notice that MOST of them do not take stock of their OWN contradistinctions. They never match the description that you have intuitively of a ‘consistent’ person; THEIR project is just to bring you down to THEIR level by pretending you to be there all ready. Yet it invariably involves a SHRINKING of your conscious personality AWAY from your deeper spiritual goals, which you know to be sacred. They try to convince you that these deep intuitions are the work of the Devil: that they are the thoughts of tyrants and serial killers. But REASON demonstrates that those villains are either the products of a corrupt society, or they are the extreme FORM of some thing that is but PART of your deeper self. Mean while EXPERIENCE demonstrates that quite apart from these inklings leading you astray they lead you into camaraderie with like-minded people, but not of a conformist nature but an individuated one. These other rebels too have what the manipulative critic s lack: they are ACCOUNTABLE. They do not merely RATIONALISE their behaviour, as do the manipulators who, true to the form of hypocrites, accuse you too of hypocrisy, leveling your ethics to just pure rationalization as well whilst not apologizing for their own. The truly ACCOUNTABLE people do not find fault with your inconsistencies, for they too see the underlying order, and what is miraculous is that they too arrived at it by INDEPENDENT means, suggesting that the Truth you share with them transcends the limitations of the corrupt social narrative and the manipulative ways in which this disease is transmitted.

Dm.A.A.

*Of course the parenthetical is meant to appease the feminists, though true to form manipulators will not find this to be enough, and nor will people who innocently follow a manipulative ideology. To them I say: Look. You are not parenthetical. But I am not obligated to represent you in every thing overtly. Much of what is intuitive implicitly involves you. To be too explicit is to be patriarchal, forgetting what is intuitive.

Strategies for Preserving Time:

The Villain: A seasoned manipulator will get into the habit of asking you questions mid-answer. This behaviour is regarded as abusive, especially by Communications Judges, though judges will recognise that it is necessary to interrupt answers if one has a large number of questions that are pre-written, not reactive.

Reactive questions are aimed at stopping you from answering previous questions by exploiting your rhetoric. In other words, imagine that some one commissions you to paint a woman. You are half way through painting her when some one comes up to you and says: That looks like a mountain. I told you to paint a woman! You begin by demonstrating what a mountain looks like, showing the mountain to be distinct from your painting. Yet an other person comes up to you mid-painting and says: I don’t want a STREAM! Paint me an Ocean in stead.

By the end of the day you have a multitude of unfinished paintings that all your critics deem worthless.

The Solution: Answer one question at a time. Do not allow your opponent the advantage. Say: “Excuse me. Out of consideration for you and your previous question, as well as the judge, I would prefer to finish this painting before beginning a new one.”

Dm.A.A.

Kritik of the term RACISM:

Kritik of the term RACISM:

Any one who uses the term racist becomes a victim of instant hypocrisy. The people who crusade against ‘racism’ as though it were a ‘Thing’, a remote object ‘out there’, bite their own Kritik, to speak idiomatically if not literally, and seem to be promoting it. Yet ‘It’ is not a real problem. In the same way as Should Implies CAN, a problem implies a possible solution. Otherwise it is an abstraction, a delusion, and a confluence of prejudices. There is no such ‘thing’ as Racism; we pretend it to be a problem because we think that we can ‘stop It’. Yet in fact it is but a REIFICIATION of totally individual prejudices that result from pretending towards solidarity in a group of progressives. Few progressives can agree what OPPRESSION is; few have gone through it, and the problem of oppression becomes no less nebulous the more one knows about it. As Kafka said: no one has access to the Law. Zizek pointed out that there is no Other that is running the show. There is no ‘they’, as in Philip K. Dick’s book VALIS. No ‘one’ or ‘group’ is racist, even if he she or they believe their selves to be. And we cannot stop people from thinking ‘bad thoughts’, especially if our own rhetoric re-enforces such terms as ‘black bodies’, ‘white bodies’, ‘red bodies’, et cetera. These terms have no referent for race does not EXIST. Yet with the advent of force one begins to ascribe an individualized meaning to them and begins to picture ‘racism’ as an external phenomenon. This process is actually an internal phenomenon, yet since it’s been demonstrated that I have no access to an other’s mind, I can rarely fairly accuse that person of being ‘racist’. And even if I could justify the accusation I shouldn’t.

To point the finger is to have three more pointing back at one’s self. To say that some one is racist is to say that some one is irrational. It is usually no good, for we are all both rational AND irrational. So it is that if the people crusading ‘against racism’ are the ones who push for essentialism and dogma, pretending towards being ‘practical’ in their essentialism, then the term is simply an arbitrary put-down and one-up. It reflects a power attitude and nothing more. opponents who insist that based upon some label they’ve assigned to us we must be ‘ignorant’ of the ‘real problems’ only underscore our point by ignoring our epistemology. The ignorance is THEIRS, as is the dogma that they use to perpetuate it. Our argument is no more circular than theirs, and THEy are the ones stuck in a loop of hatred that they COULD escape if they consider our ALTERNATIVE:

-          De-construct Race. There is no such thing, and accusations of ‘racism’ depend upon definitions that involve this urban myth.

-          As Nietzsche put it: Judge people by their Actions not their Souls.

-          Do not take seriously people who self-identify as racists. They, like the more passively aggressive Forensics Community, are not as unified as they look or as they think.

-          Eliminate the expression ‘Hate Crime’. We knew a guy who nearly went to jail for life for an act of vigilante justice against a gang member that attacked his brother. He shouted back to this young man the same term that the man or his friends had shouted at the brother. Were it not for an act of intervention on our friend’s part this one word, which all should be permitted to use BECAUSE it is so offensive, would have cost him his entire life. In the same way as we get touchy when only certain people are allowed access to fire arms, access to slurs should be available to all.

This machine stops Fascists.

Dm.A.A.

Politically Incorrect Solutions, Part One: In defense of Racial Slurs:

Politically Incorrect Solutions, Part One: In defense of Racial Slurs:

Obviously, when some one is called either a spick, a nigger, a kike, or a bitch, the term is not used to refer to an entire group of people, but it is meant to EXCLUDE that member FROM that group. The existence of a negative term implies a positive corollary; this is a way of saying that the person is DISTINCT from a Mexican American, African American, Jew, or Woman/Lady. Admittedly, Hegelian Marxists will cringe at the thought of a “Dominator Class” assigning labels of greater or lesser worth to members of the minority class. Yet when we recognise as was demonstrated by Deleuze and many intellectuals in the wake of Deconstruction (and to exclude Deleuze, silencing him, on the basis that he meets the Dominator stereotype is a blatant form of reactionary patriarchy akin to the way that the Nazis vilified the Jews by pedestalisation) that every man (and woman, implicitly) is a minority, the Hegelian game of flipping the tables, racing to the bottom to see who is really in charge, ends.

The essentialism based on group is practical insofar as the accused person IDENTIFIES WITH the group and uses that identity – usually a ‘minority identity’ – to justify poor behaviour. It is not an attitude of domineering but of justice, for as Camus said the slave begins by demanding freedom and ends by demanding a crown. In other words, Fascism tends to exploit history in order to bring a “victim group” to power. The Germans blamed the Jews, as Neo-Nazis still do, in order to justify their assault, and the Jews in turn blamed the Palestinians.

 Terms like cholo and Uncle Tom are used by members OF a group to exclude members from it. Other racial slurs are used by members of the out-group to perform the same exclusion. This is their right, for the in-group poses as much a threat to the out-group as vice versa, at least in theory. (And theory is all that we have to go by. If we have a fair theory that we can conform to, even if only symbolically, our mutual conformity in this case should lead us along the arduous road away from egoism and towards peace.)

Dm.A.A.

Argument Against Censorship.

The problem with censorship is that it imposes politics upon a field of study that is meant to transcend politics.

Argument: But every thing is political!

Counter-argument: were every thing political, supposing that the judge self-identified as a Far-Right Authoritarian, he could vote you down for how you look and then cite the relativism of your moral involvement. In other words, he would simply be acting out of a political position towards which he is entitled because all morals follow from politics, not the other way around. If all morals follow from politics, they are not absolute, for they are relative to the position of the moralizer. Supposing that circular reasonings were out of the question, the morals could not be used to identify any one position on the political Compass as The Correct One, for any one reasoner’s arguments would only reflect that reasoner’s biases and would PROBABLY lead back to the point of departure, or other wise render invalid the point of departure to begin with. Though this sort of self-transcendence of a corrupt paradigm, as depicted in the latter case, is possible and admirable, resolving such quandaries as how to justify the products of Manifest Destiny and Slavery, it involves an escape from politics into the DEEPER realm of philosophy, which would give us the tools to make such a moral transformation work. Aside from that, politics in general can be dispensed with in the consideration of what makes Good Art, and the people who insist that they (politics) will INEVITABLY influence these decisions are only trying to employ extortion in favour of their OWN ideological convictions.

Dm.A.A.

The Drop Out.

People who conform cannot really be said to have High Standards. They just have low standards for individual thought.  Conversely, genuinely self-motivated people tend to over shoot the expectations of their instructors. This was why Winston Smith remarked that one of the most loyal members of the Party would be exterminated. He was such an over-achiever that his controllers felt threatened. They knew that over a long enough time the most loyal student sees through the master. So the most brilliant students either break down within the walls of the school, unable to follow to conclusion what their teachers had dictated without falling into the hypocrisy of their peers, or they leave, rebelling against that hypocrisy with disgust rather than allowing their selves to feel that disgust with their selves. They would much rather be victims than oppressors.

Obviously, if one reads Thoreau and does one's extra credit, one might find one's self living alone some where without a stable job or concern for authority. his critics who would accuse him of taking the curriculum too far would be met with an indictment of the curriculum: Why must we read him if he is not worthy of being understood completely? The district can hide behind Schopenhauer's plaint, that they did not endeavour to unravel the mysteries of the Universe for any one who so felt entitled to such an unraveling. But what about the murkier mysteries of the school bureaucracy? Why did it choose Thoreau of all people, but only to honor one or two passages from his work? Why do they insist upon imposing their paradigm upon young minds, yet they either edit out or systematically ignore and implicitly REJECT the rest of him and every other thinker that they espouse? was this not why to this day Nietzsche is still the first result in Google Images when one searches "Nazi Philosopher"? Neitszsche was the ultimate anti-Fascist, but his works were systematically edited in this same fashion to serve the hegemony of the Nazis. So we are obligated as children who pledged daily and compulsorily to a flag that stood for "freedom" (though of course the hypocrisy of making this compulsory was so thinly veiled that now many children are only implicitly pressured to do so.) to question the very motives of the system that pushed these ideals upon us. And if our conclusions obligate us to leave or to disrupt the system, we will only be doing our homework by so doing.

Dm.A.A.

People who conform cannot really be said to have High Standards.

People who conform cannot really be said to have High Standards. They just have low standards for individual thought.  Dm.A.A.

Rape: Yep. It CAN be justified. And it CAN be a woman's fault.

The feminist narrative villifies an entire range of male sexual behaviours as being suggestive or even threatening of rape.

Yet it condemns rape rhetoric! And this is the peculiarity of it: that if in his defense a man says that he was enticed by her behaviour, as though Intuitively, he is condemned and worse: his WORDS are villified as well!

Now of course rape can be justified. It is so all the time. People who criticise Marxism by suggesting that it leads to rape justify it by implication. But the defendant justifies his actions so that they will NO LONGER *be* rape! Here are a few peculiar claims:

1. Rape can never be justified.
Think of how this is constructed, if I may employ the imperative. The act is all ready established as rape. This dis-qualifies the possibility of justification, so the central evil: it can never become any thing OTHER than the sign assigned to it! The defendant chokes on his own act, this nugget of Fascism that cannot be de-constructed, and words cannot relieve him.

But suppose that the woman WAS coming onto him! Here we see the crux of the hypocrisy: that feminists condemn sexual behaviour as rape in men, but NOT in women!

What if 'coming onto him', SHE was about to rape HIM?
And yet to be a gentleman he acquiesced, or better yet, to be a hero, he took the blow before some one else would have to!

The consideration may seem bleak. But was it frivolous to begin?

2. Rape is never a woman's fault.
How do you know.
Were it so, would she be the rapist?
Or do our opponents mean to say that a man could never be raped?(!?)

Dm.A.A.

Prediktability.

People who accuse us of being Unpredictable:

Look. Most of what we ever run has been on my blog in many incarnations for a while now. If you wanted to prepare, you could have Googled my name, found my blog, and seen our entire Aff and Neg strategy in summary. That would have taken about five to ten minutes, leaving you five to ten minutes to either write your responses or just to chill and meditate.

Oh and that INCLUDES this argument as well.

Dm.A.A.

Obscure?

Response to people who accuse us of preaching Obscurantism:

Okay. This is going to be a Performance K.

1. How many of you in the audience would self-identify as feminists? Show of hands. Okay a lot of you. You'd think I'd said Seig and y'all were saying Heil. Christ that's a lot. So are you aware that sexual repression and the systematic attempts to control frivolous sexual behaviour, condemning it as sin, sodomy, or our present misnomer, rape, was Judeo-Christian in origin?

2. How many of you believe in Science?

Okay fewer but still a lot.
Did you know that your method of thinking originated in the Christian Church in the Middle Ages?

3. How many of you have ever run a topicality argument?

REALLY. So you believe that a text has a 'framer' whose 'intent' can be 'known', as in the Gnostic tradition?

The Christian Church committed GENOCIDE over their interpretations of the 'One True' meaning of a given passage or two from the Holy Bible.

Buddhists never did that to my knowledge. Nor did Taoists. Not even Hindus; they left that to Brahman.

You hate our mysticism because we challenge the Judeo-Christian Ethic that pervades your patriarchal ideologies WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT. And if you claim to oppose Christianity you are merely Pharisees and hypocrites. Our defense is that of Timothy Leary. And we are not afraid of you.

Dm.A.A.

Twenty-three You Say?

Now about that STATISTIC that suggests that women get paid on average twenty three fewer cents than men do in this country: we agree. This merits investigation for sure. In fact, one woman on our team was incensed when she saw that and very out-spoken about it, so she decided, typical of her scholastic self-discipline, to do her own research as to the actual ROOTS of this number. And what did she find? SQUAT. It was more obscure than I.S.I.S. footage! Nothing. NO evidence. No initial study, much LESS a set of variables or control groups that are supposed to tell us WHAT THAT NUMBER EVEN MEANS. I mean, even Bill Nye, for all his arrogant self-righteousness (remember: proteins do not mutate. Proteins. Yeah, like skin.) gave us kids a chance to try the experiments at home! What do the Feminazis give us? Nothing. Much like the O.G. Nazis.

Now, we would never question Johanna's brilliance and commitment to research. As an environmentalist and botanist she multiply demonstrated a love of taxonomy and empiricism. So when the feminists Demand praise for their intelligence rather than their looks, we gladly acquiesce. Johanna's findings DO show us some thing of indispensable worth. But given how many people are incensed by these statistics and USE them without the intellectual curiosity to check their (cough) facts, we have only this to say: perhaps this regard for intelligence should be -- more of A Posteriori ethic than an a priori one. And for those of you who are wondering what those terms mean, well: You are better off not knowing. Trust me.

Dm.

No True Slave.

In case they try to argue that no black man agrees with our take on race: (the No True Scotsman Fallacy)

1. We don't care. Look at how many people supported Hitler Mussolini Stalin and Mao. Truth is decided not by the masses but by Reason.
2. We niggas too. We are just as much minorities as any 'black person' you produce as witness. Your argument commits the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
3. If 'black' people are a minority, it is unlikely that we will have that many friends who are 'black' any way. Much less that they will agree PRECISELY with our views on race TO A T.
4. They commit the black and white reasoning fallacy. Which is more than  you might think it means, from the title. Just because others may not Totally agree with us does not mean that they Entirely disagree. Much as just because some body is not White that does not make the body Black.
5. So who is the Slave here? Liberal college professors are keen to silence the 'white man', by their own definitions of 'white', under the suspicion of his being the Master. But this is a horrid appeal to history. The white man is not the master and he never was. The 'white man' fled an other white man on a different continent, as a refugee, and used the free market to establish his self and his domain on new land. He bought into a trade provided him by 'black men' on an other continent, and he won the war against the 'red man' over the land rights because he
A. Knew the Naturalist Fallacy, which would suggest that just because you were here first does not mean that others do not deserve to be here.
(Naturalism, incidentally, insofar as it is linked to Romanticism, can be a precursor towards Fascism.)
B. Probably figured that the red man would not mind, for as Chief Seattle pointed out the Indian has little interest in land ownership (oh how far they've fallen from Seattle's wisdom.)
And C. Some how had a plan for killing less buffalo and destroying fewer forests whilst making the country habitable for every colour of person imaginable to the average American. Oh and he all so BROUGHT the systems of law and order that the red man accuses of being oppressive because he was excluded initially from it. (Who would have thought that the red man would OBJECT to the white man's style of law and order? It was not as though the white man him self fled a corrupt system of law and order where he left from. SURELY the red man would have agreed to the white man's system right off the bat!)
6. But why dwell on the past? After all: we only have our horribly simplified views of history. Each perspective has more to do with the childhood of the speaker than any claim to historical omniscience.
Here is a quandary, how ever: how was it that so many Germans supported the killing of so many Jews? Well. SURELY the Germans were justified in defense against the Jewish Menace that sought to conquer the entire world! The Masters had to be silenced! They knew them selves to have been the true Slaves from having read Hegel, JUST AS HAD Dr Martin Luther King Junior.

But what happens when we reverse our thinking, Zen-fashion? Supposing the past did not matter, or! rather, the present emanated NOT from what's passed but what is yet to come? In THAT case, the silencing of the white man renders HIM the slave, for after all, as Camus said, the definition of a slave is some one whom you can get angry at but who can SAY NOTHING IN RETURN.

So if the black man is clearly the master in this scenario, then why value what HE has to say? He would gladly seize power if it is guaranteed without effort, co-writing the historical narrative to portray his self as victim. How do we know this? Every instance of Fascism in history follows this pattern. As a Jew my self  I refuse him any solidarity in this projekt.

But to silence any one, black white or grey, is to simply flip the Hegelian tables yet again. So enough of Hegel's March of Progress and his Historicity. Freedom is in forgetting, which we translate: GETTING OVER IT. Look at the real statistics. There are only two classes in this country, and the people in power, who WANT us to be divided, are their selves a minority. You do not get any special privileges by manipulating pity and history; if you are truly a victim you do not need the world to know. You are just as much a slave as any one else and no more so.

7. Our friend Tyrone once said that some of the most prejudiced people he knew were black people. He lived in his home town of Compton California after graduating from UC Berkeley. After nearly dying by gun fire he gave up drug dealing and became Palomar College's janitor.

May be he does not agree with our case in its entirety. We are adults. We can agree to disagree. We only have provided what our reasoning and our experience has blessed us with. That is not privilege but a blessing. Each of us has been through suffering and marginalisation you cannot imagine, and we overcame it rather than blaming circumstance. Time to grow up and get over problems you had no part in. You are not a product of the past but of the future. And our future will all ways out-shine yours, for it is one without race or prejudice. And it is all so our present, for we at least can Acknowledge the silliness of race and history. You have yet to see it as a joke.

Dm.

Privilege.

Privilege.

I wonder if you have ever noticed that if one is totally marginalised and power-less one does not get far with violence. The slightest lack of social tact can very quickly lose you allies and gain you enemies. So what have genuinely dis-enfranchised minorities done to cope over the course of human history? They cultivated politeness and poise.
It would terrify their masters, for you cannot truly hate on a passively aggressive gentleman. He is the perfect slave; you would never want to lose or sell him. And so the master confronts one's own soul and the creeping suspicion that may be just May be what he is doing is Wrong.

Genuinely under-privileged people learn quickly to mind their manners and to turn the other cheek. This was why Nietzsche considered the Judeo-Christian ethic a 'slave morality'. (The Jews and the early Christians, contrary to contemporary common sense, especially given the State of Israel and the Vatican, were slave people.) People in the one-down class do NOT go about screaming the racial slurs they were charged with ironically as terms of power. That can only happen when the slave becomes the Master and attains the position of power. Have you never noticed that strength (of violence) is all ways in numbers? And history proves that the shoe tends to end up on the other foot frequently. The Jews use the Holocaust to justify the annihilation of the Palestinian people. The Christian Church becomes for several centuries the most power full political and ideological force in Europe, even spilling over onto other continents. The Greeks have a word for this: Enanteodromia. Conversion into the opposite. The camel goes the other way. The shoe is on the other foot.

For those of you who ever bothered to read neo-Nazi rhetoric, it is really fascinating. The way that the Nazis justify their villification of the Jews is in the same way as Watts described the Christian marginalisation of Jesus: irrelevance by pedestalisation. In the Neo-Nazi case, the claim is that the Jews run the world. They cite predominantly Wall Street bankers and University Intellectuals as evidence for this. Political Correctness its self is considered a Semitic invention, a ploy to force us all into the politeness of a slave. Why does this horse appeal to so many members of the Nazi Party? Well, it is obvious, isn't it? I mean -- Empirically Jews are the Master Class, right? What does THEIR word count for? THEY run things!

And I am thank full. I have to tell you. I am THANK full to know that I would be met with such praise and idealism if I were, say, in Greece in the present day. But THANK fully I do not have to even go so far as Golden Dawn Greece to see Fascism at work and to be totally silenced, marginalised by pedestalisation, sequestered in the most oppressive social class, the suburbs, where I am further villified by my straight-laced neighbours. That is because the United States has its own Minorities-turned-Masters, and so it has its own Fascist rhetoric. Where in Europe I would be a dirty dominator Jew, in the Americas I am a 'privileged white male.'

Dm.A.A.

Taoism in Translation.

Meditation, whilst it can be of use in encountering the Unconscious by means of lessening conscious control (or as Jung would call it "cramp"), is essentially a Consciousness-centred activity, born from the essential "dicking around" of very well-integrated Asian men and women who could afford to turn thought (and thus its cessation) into a luxury.

A Westerner hoping to use it for therapeutic purposes can deceive his self by believing it to work. Yet fundamentally the Unconscious Data that surfaces will still be unmanageable until, through a process of integration that, given the Western predicament, must INVOLVE the ego and the intellect, it is made sense of. Until then a split will occur betwixt individual reality and external reality, as the neurotic stumbles through external life but is never able to represent it in a sensible picture. This charade ends when he is "found out" by some one external and must reconcile the interpersonal desire for sense with his own non-sense, i.e. bull shit.

C.G. Jung. (translated by Dmitry Andreyev.)

Dm.A.A.