Recovering from Abuse: DREAM FOUR...

The dream culminated in a Libra scene that would have made Nietzsche proud in its wordplay. A woman that reminds me of Emma was rummaging through a bag as though it were from In-N-Out. It reminds me of the paper bag that Jesse Pinkman receives his gun in. The bag somehow contained a set of gripes; my waking life has come so close to dream life that the middle man of metaphor is relatively unnecessary, and what the dream represents is literally made into a dream object.

Whatever the character was carrying around, it was petty. The expression “sunshine in a bag” is analogous to the expression “petty in a bag”. This was described as a Libra Coping Mechanism. It had to be buried, apparently, since I recall the name “B. Ariel” as well from my notes upon waking.

These are they:

Libra Coping Mech.

Petty in a bag.

B. Ariel.

Eugene Eric Toole.

All save for the third are inscribed in blue.

The third is inscribed in red.

Dm.A.A.

The Futility of Acquired “Experience”.

The Futility of Acquired “Experience”.

Most women in college are not at all impressed with sexual “experience”. Despite the persona of accountability, detachment theory is prevalent in the college environment. What you do does not hold value as more than a story and an experience. It does not improve one’s station or status. Besides: the politics would not allow for it. College students are predominantly neo-Liberal cultural Marxists. Granting “advantage” to a man of greater experience would be to promote impatience, since it would incentivize boys to ACCRUE experience early as though it were work experience. Not only would this privilege the experienced, whose needs are lesser. It would all so PROMOTE COMPETITION. (And no college student wants that, granted that he or she is not a total hypocrite.)

On top of all of that one must remember that these people read Foucault, as evidenced by their espousal of his views. (especially in regards to gender and sexuality, a la his History of Sexuality.) The whole notion that sexuality could be POLITICIZED is heretical to the mind of the contemporary University student.

Last of all one must remember that college students have one chief aim for attending University: education. This education may be carried out in the sexual realm as well. Yet to the same degree that it is carried out it is done in a spirit of inclusion and civility. The more prestigious the institution, the lesser the degree of hazing or disconfirmation. Besides: Foucault himself said that the rapist is simply trying to rebel against the status quo. What sort of contemporary academic would condemn the rapist? If this particular sort of social deviant is perceived to be a problem, it would follow that the school environment suffers from an excess of grouping and a deficiency of Inclusion. But then: the rapist’s condemnation is symptomatic of one other thing: that most college students apparently have no interest whatsoever in sex. They condemn him not for desiring inclusion, but rather for desiring so banal a waste of one’s time. After all: one man’s time belongs all so to all of humanity. And education is not aimed at frivolity.

Dm.A.A.

SODOM:

SODOM.

It is interesting that in the Bible God destroyed two entire cities entirely for what He deemed to be their Sin. It is this personification of God as some sort of arbitrary tyrant that has led people away from Him in Modernity. Yet the question remains: if He is an arbitrary Tyrant, by comparison to WHAT is He arbitrary? Can one be so bold as to say that it was not REALLY sin, but simply something that HE did not like? And if that were the case, who determined its nature as not-sin? God would theoretically be the final judge: a personification of the Moral Truth.

In the absence of God it was said that man is condemned to be free. Sartre wrote a novel entitled “Nausea” that deals with the subsequent feeling of Godlessness; he all so wrote the play “No Exit”, which is set in a fictional hell (to his mind, all hells are fictional). On average, Sartre’s protagonists find their life to be hellish and nauseating.

In writing this I feel as though I am stating the transparently obvious, but I would be fooling myself to believe without warrant that the average American would nod upon hearing me namedrop Jean-Paul Sartre. Philosophy was all ways weak in the standardized American curriculum, and this explains our despair, our Fascist tendencies, and our generally embarrassing educational ratings by International Standards. When confronted with philosophy, we project our own pseudo-intellectualism upon it. And since it is so debased and under-glorified it remains outdated, obscure, and offensive.

Still: the philosophical instinct endures, and the problems loom as vividly now as ever before. So some pedantry is in order.

Our discussion begins with the question(ing) of Sin. Modernity began by asking where Sin came from. It drew on existing theological questions, such as the Problem of Evil: if God is all-great and all-good, wherefore did He create Sin? Was it created by the Devil? Was it created by Man?

The answer given by modernity and atheism was that Man created Sin because Man created God. Yet what created Man then? Scientific reductionism led us some way in explaining a causal Universe that produces him. Yet what created this Universe? What triggered the Big Bang? And why did it happen the way it did?

This advantage was lost by atheism, which Nietzsche had going for his philosophy: The Will. If man is simply a product of causal forces, what is the uncaused cause? And how does one explain the overwhelming SENSE of being a free, willing, self-responsible agent of action? If no such WILL shaped the cosmos, why ARE there any cosmos at all? And if this Universe is an illusion, what is REAL, then? (and how can we know it?)

The final deduction is that we cannot know any thing. Yet what follows is that we cannot even know THAT we know nothing. So we return to the start. Philosophy seems like an absurd misadventure, devoid of practical value. But what we took for granted was that there WAS PRACTICAL VALUE. This seems to suggest that even in QUESTIONING our very WILLS we were trying to PUT THEM TO USE for our OWN WILLFUL PURPOSES! So even the school known as Quietism (the notion that all philosophical problems are illusory and one should stop puzzling over them, by any means necessary) falls apart. We are condemned to be free, and we are condemned to think. To be philosophical is an intrinsic human instinct and, like most instincts, it is a gift that varies in its expression between individual organisms. The philosopher is a minority in this culture, though he speaks for more than the majority. It is the minority that tries to answer for All Humanity. And its role is deplored for its semblance to the Old God.

This much is definitely true: the Human Being desires for Philosophy to be Practical. Hence laws are derived from Moral Ideas which are supposed to be Universal in their value. The Quest for Self-Improvement takes the place of the Quest for God, yet the tendency to STRIVE TOWARDS A GOAL remains the same, as always. It is human nature, the Will to Power.

So what of sin?

The Modernists reasoned that God did not create sin, but that rather MAN created sin in an attempt to gain power. So sin was discarded as an amateur attempt at civilization. When God died all things were permitted, and since Satan did not exist he became an easygoing fashion statement. What was easy became law, since the right to JUDGE of one’s neighbours dissolved in emotivism no longer ostensibly governed by God. Man was enthroned in God’s place, because with no one to tell him otherwise it became easy to flatter one’s self. The agreement that was reached by Modernity was that Right and Wrong were either relative or so totally, ubiquitously OBVIOUS that any one individual needed only to rely upon his own common sense and intuition in order to find peace and prosperity. No one could tell the individual otherwise, because such an authority Did Not Exist.

Of course, they were wrong.

As a matter of fact, the human mind is predisposed towards all manner of variation that MOST people regard as “perversion” and sickness. A great deal of these perversions were formally regarded as “sin” in an earlier age. What had changed was the mindset. The pervert of the olden days knew himself to be a sinner on the road to hell. Ironically, the MODERN deviant thought nothing of the kind. Every thing for him followed LOGICALLY and SENSIBLY from his own common sense and intuition. And in the absence of a GOD, no one could tell him otherwise, as though to INFUSE him with conscience or the Will to self-improve. It was more or less PRESUMED that these things were either Christian conspiracies or otherwise Natural and Universal Human Virtues.

The actions of the pervert were not the only consequence of amorality and nihilism. An other evil was the DEMORALIZING tendency. It’s one thing to bewail one’s fate when one is shocked to find a world that did not live up to one’s God conception. It is an OTHER thing to HAVE no God conception, because then one finds one’s self torn against one’s own nature. It is in one’s Nature to resist evil, but how can one resist that which does not exist??

The pervert becomes the epitome of Individuality. No individual can be trusted in a Godless world because ANY individual might turn out to be a pervert. So as Sartre put it: Hell is Other People. All things are permitted, but none are allowed. And what is used to take the place of God, for the preservation of that very EGO that was enthroned in Godlessness under the Crown of Man? The answer is the State. It is the LAW, an impersonal device rather than a Superpersonal entity, that begins to govern Culture. And since we KNOW the Law to be an impersonal device, and since we have AGREED that it is artificial and thereby prone to the failings of human nature, we pretend that it is at once more TRANSPARENT than God and all so more RELIABLE.

Yet neither is the case. Franz Kafka’s works, for instance, alongside any well-written legal drama, attest to the Absurdity and Nebulousness of the Law in its bureaucratic functioning. And it is even less RELIABLE than it is TRANSPARENT!!

Lawrence Kohlberg concluded that most people in contemporary society do not develop past the Conventional Level of Morality, of which the Higher Rung is the Social Institution. Kohlberg’s studies were condemned across the board by special interest groups who insisted that he was a “masculinist”, etc. Yet all that these unwarranted claims accomplished was that they demonstrated the degree to which INDIVIDUALS are resistant to any sort of moral imperative to self-improve. Their special interest groups INVENT terms like “masculinist” not only to solve a PRACTICAL PROBLEM but ALL SO to protect the EGO from criticism.

A society that is governed by the Ego but that fears the Individual is a danger to its self by its own nature. Not only does dogma take the place of research. Self-preservation takes the place of camaraderie. The mentality is that I can only trust you as much as I trust myself, and I KNOW DAMN WELL that I cannot trust my self.

In the Olden Days, the Individual could be trusted insofar as he was in accord with God. Admittedly, such a relationship is so PERSONAL that one’s neighbours cannot judge of one’s own relationship, except when it is OBVIOUS that one has turned from God, and such Obviousness is made available to us by God Himself. Yet this is why Faith Worked: if I know that *I* am good in God’s eyes, then I can trust myself. If I can trust myself, then I can trust my neighbor.

It is fashionable to pardon the laws of the present by laughing at the laws of the past. What is forgotten is that the laws of the past were not so BINDING as are the laws of the present. Foucault points out in his book Discipline and Punish that Modernity created even MORE devious contraptions with which to punish the pervert. Physical torture is not so severe as neglect, public outcry, and a conditioned guilt that is devoid of even God’s mercy. But above all is the severity of HATRED. Even the guards in prison turn the other cheek when the rapist is raped, though what is all so raped is the Categorical Imperative, of which vengeance is no provision or excuse: to treat others as one wants to be treated. Punishment and vengeance take the place of moral striving to set a higher example. We do not carry out punishments to vanquish evil; we carry them out to LEVEL with it, so that we may for some brief moment become-the-pervert and yet be spared the fate of being-a-scapegoat. So the only aspect of punishment that is retained from the MIDDLE AGES is FEAR. And that is only as powerful as one’s convictions that one will not get caught. SOMEHOW, in the absence of an All-Seeing-Eye, getting caught seems less likely. So the State must take the place of God’s Omniscience. And it does this by creating a “Snitch State”, a panopticon wherein people spy on one an other and carry out vigilante justice against the perpetual scapegoat for their own sins, which they do little to transcend if they just so HAPPEN to have the same sins as most people. (Of course, most people in fact have many private sins which they dare not show to the public. Even their spouses cannot know; what if one is met with divorce and lawsuit just for an eccentric turn of phrase?)

The Law was less severe in the Olden Days because it was SECONDARY to God. And so its execution was more humane, since it was based on the presupposition that man, despite his fallen nature, still was a beloved Child of God, and he should be treated not only with hatred but with respect. In THIS day and age, we only see such an attitude in the rare film drama wherein we both hate and respect the Villain, as does the Hero. And these are usually written by Christians and Buddhists of some sort.

So how do we save ourselves from Sin? Will God laugh as we blow ourselves up?

Our salvation rests in SYMPATHY.

In our culture, one suffers alone to the degree that one suffers with everyone. It is an Absurdity that would drive any one mad (if I may be so bold). Yet what a revelation it IS to discover that it is neither CRUELTY nor ARROGANCE that perpetuates one’s alienation from the Human Community, but PAIN! One is alienated because ALL are alienated; there IS barely any Human Community save for the Law!! Humans die as the law grows virally. It is not alive, yet it spreads and grows less and less human and humane as its complexity defies both Affect and, over time, Reason.

Yet the Community can be saved by recognizing that this pain is one’s own pain. While Blame and Sin vary from person to person, Pain does not. It is the very Ubiquity of Pain that produces the Specificity of Sin. Pain is what the victim has in common with the oppressor, and it is what any pair of human aggressors is working together to prevent, heal, and even avenge (by its perpetuation, hence the ludicrousness of that peculiarly human passion).

By recognizing that we suffer TOGETHER, one is given license again to HEAL, even by radical means. One’s critics have simply given up the fight, and by so doing they aggravate their OWN pain. Fear is a dangerous emotion. But transcendence gives one the grace of God. It gives one an opportunity for Courage and Wisdom that was lost with the Death of Him. And it restores the value of the Hero, who by working to save others saves himself by the only means that one CAN save one’s self: Incidentally, as the result of trying to save others. And as one becomes-aware of this as the human predicament one gains conscious mastery of it, so that one can even save others as a MEANS towards the END of saving one’s self, becoming both practical and inspired without needing to yield to the Public telling one that one is a fake who only wants one’s own salvation. One is not “forcing” any thing with an “ulterior” agenda; one simply has made practical what was inspired, gaining deliberate mastery over something initially and ultimately SPONTANEOUS: Good Will.

Dm.A.A.

Recovering from Abuse: DREAM THREE.

DREAM THREE.

The dream dealt with several themes including but not limited to envy, betrayal, and mystery. The visuals were vivid and cinematic but all so lurid and literary. At present I am reminded of two items of media: “Runaway Train” by Soul Asylum and BioShock. The story took the form of a decision-based game. The protagonist was hard to discern at first; just as in the program I have been planning with Anthony I.A.L, the narrative involved several people and the “hero” was only eerily apparent after the conclusion of the First Act.

I was abandoned by my comrades, who departed by railway. We lived underground, in a shelter directly adjacent to a subway station not unlike the B.A.R.T.IA.L. The train was connected to the Transit Network that pervades the other dreamscapes; it is the synchronicity that has all ways taken me from one episode in my Life’s Journey to an other.

I was left behind with one other. This fellow got on the same train, right before it left, yet via the back door rather than the front. All the rest were all ready aboard. I had to chase him, because he had betrayed me. He was supposed to stay behind with me, to protect and shelter me from what was coming, but in his cowardice and treachery he got on board via the BACK DOOR – a criminal move. Even now in writing it this would seem arbitrary; to call the Back Door “forbidden” seems just as silly as to insist that it represents the violation of a Moral Absolute. Yet the Betrayal was not to be trifled with, because my enemies WOULD in fact find me, and they would leave me mangled.

Yet what ever became of the train? It’s possible that it led not to heaven, nor to some other part of Earth, but rather to Hell. So I pity my traitor now, and I am reminded about why I did not board the train when I had the chance. Partly, I was afraid that my fellows would betray me once aboard. Yet I all so was concerned for their safety, though my warnings went unheeded and I resolved myself to their failure of judgment and character.

Dm.A.A.

Recovering from Abuse: DREAM TWO.

DREAM TWO.

The dream was full of angst. Its culmination was on the San Diego State campus. I had an encounter with a female sociopath. It was one of the most lurid and accurate dreams that I’ve had of late. I awoke feeling threatened. I am reminded that I never wanted to be a Fascist, but that I was only trying to fight it. I continue to fight it, but in my own way, asserting only what I need and dismissing what others “want”, refusing to have my own needs trivialized as wants. Trusting my intuition in this respect and refusing to be disrespected: this is masculinity.

The weather was overcast. I recall the Parking Lot where I met Danny I.A.L. I wonder if he was easily seduced by her. What does that say of people of his sign?

Trauma pervaded the warlike scene. It’s hard to remember any thing else. The classrooms were like Hospital rooms in their austerity. I felt as though I’d been raised my entire life to fight a battle. I was a pig for the slaughter. I was Harry Potter. And I am reminded that J.K. Rowling has my house placement: a lost childhood, raised to fight the Good Fight without any real choice but to grow up quickly and then to adapt the Adult World to the image given in Childhood. Even a victory is but the conclusion of a tragedy.

Dm.A.A.

Recovering from Abuse: The Fascist.

Recovering from Abuse: The Fascist.

You all ways tried to control me. Even now you try to and you refuse to accept responsibility for it. To your mind and by your own admission you regard my life as some sort of game of zero sum. So you insist WITH RUTHLESSNESS that I am forbidden to exercise my will upon others, even if that exercise of my will is absolutely necessary to the attainment of my most basic needs and most inspired goals. Any will alien to your own is an adversary, so even as you impose will upon me you do so by denying me my right to fight back. You add insult to injury and blame your victim. You all ways told me how to live: to get a job, to keep my mouth shut, and to ACCEPT what was not inevitable but was treacherous towards me. You isolated your interests from mine, falling all ways short of what you COULD do but all the while demanding more and more of others. And why did you have the right to fall so short? Why did you demand conformity and defend conformism except that it would allow you to do a little less than you were capable of? Was it laziness or simply fanciful elitism? Your expression of the Will to Power was passive-aggressive, preserving the laziness of others so that the machinery of society would ERODE. You are persistent only insofar as it is easy to pretend that you ARE the machinery of society. Yet you are simply a sell-out who robs the machine of its proper purpose: to accommodate human life.

Ethics are not exclusively those that can be governed by Force. The philosopher’s path is a dangerous one, alongside that of the eccentric artist. Both have to convey their Vision of how Life is supposed to be. To sell out is to cease to be an Artist. Intimacy is the ability to share one’s Vision in a spirit of Trust in that both parties aim at a common goal. This Trust is violated when one of them is condemned for his Vision, when the common goal is sabotaged, or when the conditions of Intimacy are used to benefit at the expense of the other party.

Without transparency of conviction, relationship is impossible. Since this degree of moral reasoning occurs on the post-Conventional level, it is never a threat of force, because enforcement is the solitary province of the Law. The Law occurs on the Conventional Level. Most people live on this level. Yet without the few that abide on the post-Conventional level, the Law loses its purpose.

I made my self vulnerable to some one who possessed the intelligence to comprehend post-Conventional morality. She admitted to my moral superiority, but she condemned its implications. I drew conclusions reasonably from her claims and promises. Then I was met with legal recourse. It was threatening, but I came prepared. I had all ready violated her terms, without having known them, for I would often be in the habit of sending her material without waiting around for a response. The material she claimed to read and to appreciate, though inconsistencies appeared betwixt that narrative and the given facts. The responses were often mean, and she even discouraged me from reading them once I’d made it clear I could not bear to see them.

The legal threat was looming, but I replied. I made it clear that I would not be toyed with. I wrote it with finality and irony. It was what I called an Apotheosis: the culmination of the hero’s quest, the Beatific Vision at the end of the Journey. In short: it was over. Or so I intended. And she and I would get our common wish: Privacy.

It was only AFTER I wrote this that I was threatened again. And at this point it’s even more laughable than it was before. The Fascist is really so vulgar. She uses her weakness as a threat. She slanders those who trusted her. She champions the Truth, but only insofar as it works in her supposed favour. She claims to be a freedom-fighter but is a total conformist to the Word of the Law, devoid of its Spirit. She is the reason that the whistleblower and the innocent advocate are confused with a third group: the malevolent “Snitch”.

Were one meek, one might surrender one’s autonomy as an intellectual to her. But true genius must survive the fleeting devices of any one set of lifetimes.

The Fascist is not really worried about ongoing habits from the past; that is never enough to exercise legal action. The legal action is a threat, a bluff, and an ongoing attempt to control. If this seems all too hopeful, I assure you it is produced under force of Reason alone, devoid of attachment.

What threatens the Fascist most is not the past but the future: that one will rise up and refuse to be a victim any longer. And that is of course DEEPLY threatening.

Dm.A.A.

P.S.: Choosing not to operate an automobile does not make one MORE dangerous, but less so. It is meekness in practice, not only in semblance. Yet it is all so wise, and hardly is it a grievous disability.

How to: Cease and Desist.

We are done.

Make no further attempts to either contact me nor to involve yourself in my affairs.

I will not be harassed and made into a scapegoat for the damages that your agenda produced.

I will not be penalized for an excessive faith in your goodness of character.

If it was you, then I know that your last attempts at destroying those you can't control were brought on not by those habits you condemned in me, but rather by my new set of habits in refusing to be threatened with annihilation.

Dm.A.A.

STATEMENT OF INTENT.

Statement of Intent:

This weblog is a work of fiction. Its purpose is purely to provide healing for people who have survived abuse. No malicious intent is meant by it, and save for specific transcripts the contents are to be interpreted as fictitious, in accord with contemporary philosophical common sense that every writer is somewhat of an unreliable narrator.

If I cannot heal from my Art, I have no legal rights.

Dm.A.A.

Recovering from Abuse: DREAM ONE.

Day One Out:

I went to Plan Nine Alehouse. It was during the daytime, so I could get away with it until Chad showed up. I made use of my time to do some research on the local newspaper the place supplied. I was in the company of three others gentlemen in their twenties, all of whom were either friends or acquaintances of mine. We were a pack.

Later, we convened at Christian’s home. Inexplicably I was stark naked after a point; I had my surface clothes on-hand, but I’d misplaced my underwear. Even more inexplicable was the fact that none of the other men seemed really much to care.

I began a conversation with a Hispanic gentleman. He might have been Luis; it’s hard to say. We were seated at a cement-flavoured table at one corner of the largely empty building, a building that resembled overwhelmingly a Christian Mission, not unlike San Diego State had.

I would look  down at myself with some of my usual bashfulness and embarrassment, only to look up and find that I was talking to an other man. It was Christian. He was very sincere and adamant (Adam, the First Man?) about what we were discussing. No attention was paid again to my embarrassing predicament. I forgot it for a few moments.

I know what this dream means, and I can say that without any arrogance.

It is rather ubiquitous, so I shall make clear that it’s point is not lost to me.

No one cares about who I’ve been or what I’ve done. It embarasses only me.

The home of the Arian represents a Fresh Start devoid of ethnic distinction and personal back-stories. It is fitting that the House of a man named Christian is all so in appearance the home of a Religious Commune. And since it is a Mission, it is not an ancient, desiccated orthodoxy, but rather a fresh start in one’s strivance towards Godliness and Human Compassion. It is all so representative of a Common Mission; not coincidentally but fortuitously the bar Anthony and I visited last night I.A.L. was called “Common Theory”.

The dream is one, as I’ve expected, of Youth thriving after Abuse. Chad, the owner of Plan Nine, had kicked me out on Thursday for his enduring prejudices. It obligated me to consider the abusive tendencies of Aries people that I’ve been familiar with since birth, given my Mother as she was at that age-before-sympathy.

The dream represents forgiveness, friendship, and redemption after abuse. My last abusive relationship was with an Aries. But Anthony is an Aries as well. Inspired by Jesus, he led his pack last night I.R.L. as we celebrated Cole’s twenty-first birthday. It was trying to get out again, but all was well. And he attributed his positivity to both his enduring religious studies and his ongoing dreams about me and the spiritual themes we discussed over the years, esp. prior to our most recent (and to him inexplicable) hiatus.

I won’t preclude all so the possibility that this was the long-awaited Vision Dream that, like those back in 2013 that had prompted me to grow my beard, might be inspiring me to shed my old shell and to shave. That is only if Christian is supposed to mirror some part of me in any way. Since I have three Aries placements in my chart, it’s not impossible.

Dm.A.A.

Recovering from Abuse: A Gentleman's Apotheosis.

Nice try. But criminals have no recourse.

I expected some thing intense but this takes the cake.

Here is my formal response:

1. Don't flatter yourself. Most of my weblog has nothing to do with you.

2. I have witnesses who attest to your consumption of illegal drugs. So there's that. Far from this being blackmail, it serves as evidence for a proper cause for my concern. I was all so knowledgeable about your suicidal ideations as well as those of your "friends". When I tried to help, you never tried to stop me. Not with any sort of legal threat, at least. Only as one would expect a poor and damaged young girl to resist assistance.

3. I have made public your love letter to me. This was one of the last few things you sent to me before this sudden (and very creative) legal document.

4. I would have expected a greater degree of transparency from some one who obligated me to promise to give her the Truth. I have only maintained that promise in the Spirit that your "kinder" letters have conveyed: as collaborators with a common goal.

5. Ethics were never your strong suit, as you confessed. What you are demonstrating is a formal step in a three-step process practiced exclusively by people with narcissistic personality disorder. The first step is idealization. The second is disconfirmation and devaluation. Side by side they are stunning in their implication that every thing contained not only in your sweet, carefully cultivated words, but all so in your hostility, is a lie aimed at an ulterior agenda. So fuck you. It was not your loving goodbye alone that was a lie, but our entire correspondence. And that I shall take no blame for. If ethics were truly your concern, you would take responsibility for your own abuses and thank me for reaching out to you in my time of need, as you did for me. You would acknowledge fairly that I all ways did what I could for you, and I was not irrational to expect the same in return. (That reward was never my plan, for neither was the desperate feeling of loneliness you left me in.)

6. You have neither legal advantage nor interpersonal advantage. It is alarming that few people seem to acknowledge the realities of female abuse towards men. Suffice to say, I won't be fooled twice. I have enough experience in life in and out of academia to hold up my end of the case. Besides: I know you're bluffing. You all ready broke a vow higher than the law, if rumours are true. I thought myself slanderous for even regarding them. But now I have little choice, by force of Reason and Intuition. Having won this psychic battle, the legal "battle" will be a minor stain.

7. Yes: I broke rules on your behalf. Be that as it may, we are in this together now. You can't take that back. You are an amateur as a con artist and you know not how to cover your tracks. And your partner in crime need not be held accountable for property damages either. Get my drift? Don't worry: I am discounting you from my property, so the damages you endured are no longer my problem. I am thankful I had the chance to complete my end of this correspondence before reading this. Blame me not that I have only read it just now. After all: many times you have apologized for your reckless impulses and discouraged me from reading what I was right to fear reading. This time, I am fearless as you never could be. Toying with my reputation is incomparable to playing with my heart, and no prison can enslave my mind now that I've survived you. But thanks for the Heads Up, darling.

Dm.A.A.

Recovering from Abuse: Justice.

Recovering from Abuse: Justice.

An accusation ceases to be true if the accuser is all ready proven guilty.

The narcissist identifies Goodness quickly and tries to sabotage it.

This is not a testament to his own competence. It is a testament to his private agony in isolation.

Abuse is benefit at the expense of an other.

Once one has been found to be guilty of self-interest, one loses all ethos.

The Law must all ways be convenient to the abused.

No abuser is at liberty to question the validity of the Law.

Suspicions about its convenience are unwarranted when held by the guilty party.

The guilty party owes unto the innocent party the convenience that would properly have belonged to them both, but that ended up favouring the former rather than the latter.

Such is justice.

Dm.A.A.

CHILDREN:

Children:

All life carries intrinsic meaning.

The fetus is all ready a human being.

It does not have gender when it is still vulnerable to abortion.

Thus abortion is not a women’s issue but a human issue.

It is literally the only human issue that is neither a women’s issue nor a men’s issue.

Because life matters, abortion is immoral.

This is not a matter of individual discernment.

It is Universal to Human Beings and ubiquitous to Rational Beings.

Part of female identity must be the exceptional care that she takes of her body, only because it might bear a child.

No feminist interested in distributing pity amidst rape victims wants to help the woman to prevent rape in the first place.

It is too embarrassing to admit to a part in the victimhood. So the irrational prejudice acts as a demeaning evil whose aid must come late and all ways depends upon the existence of victims. Such a necessity on the part of the organization produces the fatalism that characterizes misandry. Hence men are falsely convicted of being rapists. The alienation that they experience as a result produces the rapist.

The affirmation of life as having intrinsic meaning ends this cycle of abuse.

Abuse towards the unborn child is literally the karma whose other end rests in abuse of the woman.

Older institutions prevented both with greater success than we can find in the present.

Feminism is predicated upon the presupposition that women are capable of Reason.

Egalitarianism indicates that every one must have an equal opportunity at the Truth.

Thus egalitarian feminism must conclude that logical conclusions are Universal and available to all Rational Beings who simply choose to avail of them.

There are no women’s issues or men’s issues. The very notion is sexist.

There are only human issues.

Abortion is the topic that transcends the distinction.

Abortion is Universally immoral.

Parenthood is all ways a choice.

Childhood is all ways a fate.

Children cannot be called selfish by default.

They pursue their needs at all costs.

But selfishness is not the pursuit of needs.

It is the pursuit of wants at the EXPENSE of others’ needs.

To learn discernment is to learn to distinguish needs from wants.

Selfishness is all so characterized by AGGRESSION.

Only some children show early signs of aggression.

These signs are independent in many cases of upbringing.

Many children need not be aggressive to have their needs met.

They are those whose parents did their job.

If they are aggressive any way, it is because they are pursuing wants rather than needs.

This behavior must be prohibited.

Any one who fails to absolves himself of any right to judge of children.

If sex is suspected often as a motive, this prejudice can only be justified if sex is acknowledged as a need.

If sex is a need, it follows that it is a right towards which one is entitled.

Only by protecting needs can one discern selfishness from altruism, for failure to do so would be the pursuit of a desire at an other’s expense. This would threaten the entire moral fabric that preserves Humanity.

An injustice does not cease to be an injustice because it is vocalized.

Facts do not cease to be facts because they are ignored.

Contemporary thought daemonizes the rapist for pursuing his needs.

This is ostensibly childish behavior.

Yet that accusation is daemonizing of the very INNOCENT people that children are.

In fact: to be a “victim” of rape one must still be a child, because an adult woman should, as previously explained, take precautions.

Feminism suggests that “don’t rape” and “don’t get raped” are distinct.

Yet this is a false duality from the perspective of the unborn fetus.

If life does not have intrinsic value, every thing is permissible.

If rationality is not Universal, any thing can be rationalized.

One has no alternative but to admit to the Universality of Logic.

It is not Universality that threatens the human being, but Relativism.

The rapist would in THEORY regard his logic as Universal.

Yet if we permit Relativism to take the place of Universalism then he needs not even a defense. All logic is relative to HIM.

The rapist has rights.

His rights are to have his needs met and to find Equality with all of non-celibate Humanity.

Preferential treatment has robbed him.

Hypocrisy has made him a scapegoat.

But his attitude follows logically from moral decay within the social system that condemns him.

If he cannot retain his rights, neither can his victim.

In that sense, victim and assailant are one.

The assailant actualizes this oneness via the violent act.

Yet the violence is unnecessary if the Need is acknowledged as Right to begin with.

So rape cannot be an exceptional justification for abortion.

Abortion would have therefore to justify rape.

Yet it is preferable to acknowledge the Universal Value of Life.

Only then can one put an end to the violence.

This is what it means to value human rights.

The conventional view is that women are incapable of Reason and misconstrue aggression as self-entitlement. The view continues to suggest that aggression is necessary to receive sexual satisfaction on the parts of both parties.

This is what “rape culture” signifies.

To be dispossessed of this view, we must conclude that aggression is unnecessary.

We must substantiate it by behaving like trees rather than parasites: receiving, giving, but never taking.

We must all so therefore be careful that we do not hold people to double-standards for hormonal reasons. Encouraging activity in deed that one discourages in word is a form of hypocrisy. If “self-entitlement” is rewarded, it becomes justified. And the rapist finds a rational excuse. The act of violence is deduced from the premise. The deduction is valid. It is only the premise that is false.

Such matters must be handled at their core.

The solution to inequality in sexual practice is Trust.

No ideology can produce Trust.

It is a choice on the part of the Individual.

Trust dissolves boundaries and prejudices in a way that does not require force.

Trust is the affirmation of the Intrinsic Value of Life.

It protects all.

Thus we must remember that the World owes us something. And we owe something to the World. If Life is to be preserved as an Intrinsic (rather than arbitrary) Value, it must be acknowledged as an Intrinsic Imperative.

Otherwise we remain children in the lesser sense.

To be a Child in the Greater Sense is to be well-integrated and blameless.

One-sidedness is a mark of barbarism.

The mark of a civilization’s character is in how it treats its children.

Taking only what we need, we become patient.

Feeding the needs of the neighbor, except when REASON forbids us to, we become safe.

All scapegoating is the result of a lack of Integration.

The alpha male projects weakness upon the beta male.

The hyperfeminine woman projects evil upon hypermasculine men.

One is not born a rapist.

One becomes one by being perceived as one.

Such is sociology.

Become again as children if you wish to see the Kingdom.

Dm.A.A.

This was written from the proud perspective of a detached and celibate observer.

Morality 101:

Morality 101:

I think that you spaced on how this whole “morality” thing works. So let me just clue you in: I offer a suggestion as to what I consider the best and most just course of action to take. Then you either offer a sensible alternative, or we take my approach. We draw both on a variety of resources in arriving at a conclusion that benefits not only ourselves but Justice Itself. If there is no error in my reasoning, or if you can provide no moral alternative, then you have no further say in the matter. I will use my own reasoning to be the final arbiter because – obviously – the conscience governs all. If you are conscientious as well, there should be no issue in arriving at the Universal, with our efforts combined and no ulterior motives that might sabotage us.

I have been competent in this art for a very long time. I have defended many people from injustice of all sorts, even single-handedly. I have placed my focus so much upon others that it has been to the exclusion of myself. This hypocrisy I mean to remedy. Though I never planned that I would have to. I simply have it on the authority of my most recent client that I ought to. And I have it on the authority of my own pain.

You are in NO position to negotiate now. You hurt and disrespected me. You hurt and disrespected my client. This much I know. Clearly you have no interest in my conscience, so I cannot call you a conscientious person. You insist upon dissent even when you have no moral argument to uphold it. You try to accuse me of self-interest when your own hands are red.

This will not fly. Ever. It is fitting that Justice should be “convenient” unto me now because it is owed to me. I owe it to myself. As do you. We are well past the point that a situation of mutual convenience could be attained. You I have to thank for that. Now Justice has turned the tables on you. Any fit of rage on my part is justified by the desperate posture I’ve found myself in, as the result of my own good will and vulnerability combined with your own lack of basic human concern for Others.

*I* am the Other now. You answer to ME. To attack me is to attack all of morality. I am a pillar of morality. Should it fall, it shall rain down upon YOU. Semblance becomes reality in this way: that for all the insincere preaching you should actually have to encounter the fury of an Angry God. That for all your macho posturing you should have to face true Masculinity.

You have no right to raise suspicion against me when your own guilt has all ready been proven. Morality is not something for you to trifle with. It is a Law higher than law. That you fail to comprehend it or to admit to it only reflects your own deficiency of conscience.

You’re damn RIGHT that it’s “convenient” to me. What sets it apart from you is that it’s right. If what is Right is all so Convenient to a person, then that person’s compensation is in order, rather than that person’s condemnation. You cannot ever preclude this possibility of Innocence and Victimhood all because YOU have not been either innocent nor victimized. All of this would occur naturally to a Rational Being. You react to it as though it were a Threat. This will not stand.

You were all ways wrong to behave this way, and now of all times you should see this as an opportunity to turn your life around: now that your most Noble friend must work against you to preserve Justice. Yet you blame the victim. You add insult to injury. You enflame hatred and enthrone madness. I have to ask: when did the Law cease to be the Law when the officer of the Law became a victim? Was it not INEVITABLE that he would be attacked? He could not prevent it; he could not prepare for it, inevitable as it might have been. He was too busy helping others.

So now you think to blame HIM?! You think to defame the Law Itself by misattributing it to its messenger? What right do you have to demoralize me? YOU of all people. You must be psychotic. I of all people have seen you in your depravity; it was I who had to witness it directly as its recipient.

I made myself vulnerable for You and for the Good, believing you to be an ally in this quest, as you’d pretended to value such matters. It was all too easy for you to take advantage of that. But now you think you’re tough enough to take on God Himself by claiming that He is but MY invention?!? You are insane. After all: if any decent man could take the place of God, he WOULD reward me for my valour and my self-effacing loyalty. It would be Fair. I have only to represent myself now in like fashion.

Never again dare say those words: that God and Morality are matters of convenience. It is clearly convenient to you to pretend that is so. I would pardon an offense to me, but not to Them.

Besides: you are of all people the least qualified to contend with God. And I know this better than any other, for the same exact reason that you try to condemn me: That I am a victim of your sin, and I am not so meek as to pass up on Justice.

The punishment does not become alleviated when an officer of the Law is made a victim.

It becomes more severe.

And in this respect we are all officers potentially.

You have simply chosen to turn in your badge.

Dm.A.A.

a Tale of Self-Knowledge:

A Tale of Self-Knowledge:

I have remained blameless throughout my life. My outlook was all ways turned outwards. What desires I had I had acquired via others, by mimicry and imitation. It was born out of a felt longing for inclusion. This longing would never abate, even in times of social prosperity, for there was all ways for me some mountain to climb or some one to help. Inclusion was useless if not all were included. This much was obvious. So were many things. My mind was pure, conscious and unconscious. I had simply to cultivate it and to maintain its sanctity. Then I could proceed to aid my fellow human beings in the mutual enjoyment of each other's passions, the struggle against evil and towards solidarity, and the actualization of our potentialities. There was no room in this mentality for competition or scorn. I never thought that I would find myself involved in either.

I have upheld the fundamental human values. I have led by example. It has been an example that would be of benefit to all were it followed by all, yet I have required none to follow me. I have never made any attempt to control any one. I cannot begin to think of who might accuse me of that. I have only ever expressed freedom, and freedom without an outspoken conscience is incomplete. No one can defy the conscience of an other and claim any right or opinion of one's own. Such people are all ways concerned primarily with control and do not value Others as ends in and of themselves. It is regrettable that I should have to qualify my unconditional love for Others by excluding these people from the human community. Yet they exclude themselves!

I am free. My example is freedom. There can be no freedom without justice. I have set an example of freedom. I have relied upon every one and no one. Every one is a part of me; no one controls me. Every one belongs to me, but no one owns me. This is an example that all can follow. There is fundamentally no distinction between Self and Other.

I have not depended upon any one group. I do not belong to any one group exclusively. If they are hurt by my freedom, their pain is self-inflicted. They cannot govern my behaviour by pretending towards kindness, nor can they reasonably expect me to behave a certain way only because they FEEL expected to TREAT me a certain way. All Superego is superfluous and toxic. It blocks empathy and compassion from reaching consciousness, without which a school cannot swim together and music has no harmony.

Their behaviour is not only controlling but competitive. There is no free market. Any competition is a limitation upon freedom. I do not see victory as victory if it is not deserved, and nor do I tolerate an unjust loss. When one person benefits at the expense of an other, all humanity suffers.

A competitive person sets an example that only he can follow. I set an example that ALL can follow. It is a high road that few choose to. Yet it is more dignified than the irrational prejudices of any one tribe of peers.

I do not depend upon you in any exclusive sense. Yet I value you unlike I value any one else. Since I've not come between you and the people close to you, withhold your judgment upon me for what my other relations are. Their nature neither proves my dependency upon you and nor does it justify your actions as though all of my relationships were similarly plagued. And even were they so, you would be not more justified but less. I will not tolerate abuse, nor will I tolerate it moreso if the others in my life should follow your example.

If you are complacent, you are privileged.
If you are privileged, you have wronged.
If you find fault with me, it says something of yourself.
All life is sacred, so I shall not have mine invalidated. If I had to choose between the invalidation of my life and yours, I would choose yours to be invalid, for I would know which of us has chosen to dishonour life's sanctity.

I know myself. So I will not yield to a false guilt that could produce a deeper shame.

And I am you. You are whom I write for.

So that you can recognize your identity and stand up for the value intrinsic to human life. So that you can love and by loving conquer death.

And only harm to an other can truly arouse me. Self-defense is a waste of energy.

Even now: I am defending you.
If I want a reward it is in its self to be of service to you.
Service is its own reward.
And I will not be ashamed to love.

I am human.

Dm.A.A.

REPLY:

Well: I can't pretend that I didn't expect more. Perhaps I hoped for it?

All of what you wrote was a lie, but then your utter lack of sympathy for the truth of my perspective makes it apparently so.

That is not even the issue.

You just don't get it. You only reply now with the usual condescension. But was it not you that freaked out when the band broke up? Was it not you that insisted that I had no right to stay mad at you?

Admit it: you have never tried to help me. Your view of independence is totally skewed. I did not need you for a ride home that day. You PRESUMED that I did.

And the reason that you do not value parenthood as an entitlement is that you live in fear of ever becoming a parent.

Your reply is entirely defensive. It is not apologetic. It confesses nothing. It marginalizes me entirely. And then it blames ME for the marginalization!

But face it: you betrayed me. All this time I thought you were trying to avenge it. But you were petty. You were arrogant. And you were a total narcissist.

You still are. And you were never self-reliant. You needed me more than I needed you, but you had not the courage to admit it.

You loved her less than I loved her. And still you have no courage to admit it.

It is obvious that you missed my entire point for writing this. You try to condemn me. Constantly you do. I only tried to maintain some sense of moral order.

I am more informed in this study than you are. My weblog was your idea. There was a time that you respected my wisdom.

This is the result of my pain and the courage I have had to muster to develop a unique ethic. It is better than having none. And I've gotten here on the shoulders of giants. Have you ever even climbed one? You pretend towards knowledge but I've called your bullshit plenty times.

I was your friend. It is you that fails to acknowledge the need to change and to atone. And yet do not flatter yourself about my entire blog. Its scope is far beyond any thing YOU are concerned with. Thank you for alleviating my worries with the old adolescent bullshit. You are a fine shrink. I know where you get it from.

You wound up supporting Hitler and condemning your entire generation. Was I wrong to notice your Fascism early?

Don't try to bullshit me, Taylor.

All you do is defend yourself. So *I* lacked courage? Bitch please. I won't go into all I did for Alanna. You can read my blog and see for yourself. Go on. Read it and weep. What's Truth to you? Nothing you're ever afraid of. Right?

I've held you to your word. But apparently you are too independent to be held to any thing. Even when you level you one-up. Now you admit you are dependent, but at LEAST you never claimed otherwise! But why condemn it then? What sloth.

I met her by the Will of God. Once you spoke for Him. Now I guess He doesn't talk to you any more. Of course: you defied Him.

Yes: He wants me to be happy. You said that once too. But He has a Plan for us.

I met her because I broke away from the Group and wandered. I found courage that even now you continue to condemn in me. And I had the courage to trust you. But you were much too arrogant and selfish to reciprocate my trust.

And you presumed that I had waited not out of wisdom but out of cowardice.

The cowardice was yours.

The fault was yours.

The arrogance was yours.

The delusion was yours.

And that she believed it is more a testament to her innocence than to any skill YOU possess.

And she has attested to this. Because I earned her trust.

So convenient it was for YOU!! You even thought *I* did this for YOUR sake!

I guess Godlessness all ways had to settle for something.

You still owe me an apology. To this day you depend upon me. To this day you creep in the corners waiting to use what I have found through my own courage.

I learned from Alexandra. I learned not to rush. And knowing how it hurt you I thought that you would have learned as well.

But you never learn. Not even after reading my entire blog apparently.

I mean: how else can you speak for all of it with such reductionistic glee?

I wouldn't put it past you if you read it all. It was your idea after all. Certainly got more done than you ever did for me. And yes: you owed me for all the fucked up situations that you put me in because you lack any thing resembling a consistent moral compass.

This instance is but one last example of that. And while we're being rational: what was the mature motive for destroying my first keyboard? Was it not there on HER behalf as well?

I need no cleverness to smoke you out of hiding. The light of truth suffices. Humanity suffices. Even Rob said you were not a person any more. A hollow shell of what you once were. A virus that infects those who tried to help him. Inconsiderate of their needs and their rights, for he is an emotional black hole (her words) that cannot see beyond the mountains of his self-inflicted misery. So that he cannot surmount them enough to apologize to those upon whom HE inflicted misery.

It's so easy to be politically correct. And Republicans really ARE the most politically correct people. It is the stern stoicism of an imperial conscience.

I know you did not write this for me.

You wrote it with the fear that some one else would see through you.

You know I believe none of it.

I have no reason to.

But you won't win this.

Do yourself a favour and give up.

Stop defending yourself. It's only a speck in the cosmos.

It was not cowardice that brought her to Kettle. It was trust. It was good will. It was enthusiasm and hope. It was Life.

And it was What She Wanted.

You possessed none of these qualities.

And she saw that.

Had I not been loyal to you for years, I would have warned her.

This blog is for her now. Not for you.

And still you act as though it were all about you! As though it were my fault! But who wronged whom? Would you not pretend towards morality just to get What You Want, at all costs? Of course; you did. Your actions simply never lived up to those spiritual heights. Mine do. So displace no more blame upon me. We both know where the Shame is situated.

WHY am I at fault? You've only really mentioned yourself and how I affected you. Even now you bite your own critique.

You barely think to acknowledge my true motives: love for an other. SHE was never much to you. So why did I lose her to you? Error. Sin. All of which she has admitted, but you have not. As I knew she would.

So it's really all about YOU now. And that is all you want. But that will no longer be the case.

Stay away from Alanna. That much was my message. You are not good at emulating a human being. So quit trying.

Dm.A.A.

PSYCHIC MARTIAL ARTS: [CHARTS.]

PSYCHIC MARTIAL ARTS: [CHARTS.]

How Manipulation Works in the Western Zodiac.

This chart depicts the various signs, their weaknesses, and the alibis for these weaknesses.

These are exploited by manipulation.

Aries.	Ego.	Confidence.
Taurus.	Greed.	Need.
Gemini.	Competitiveness.	Independence.
Cancer.	Complacency.	Peace.
Leo.	Pride.	Propriety.
Virgo.	Envy.	Entitlement.
Libra.	Vanity.	Achievement.
Scorpio.	Fear.	Realism.
Sagittarius.	Arrogance.	Validity.
Capricorn.	Dogma.	Commitment.
Aquarius.	Zeal.	Ambition.
Pisces.	Pity.	Righteousness.

Notice that a good deal of these are formal sins.

The Religious Instinct is a Power Greater than the Will to Power.

These are the techniques that the signs use to manipulate people, alongside their attempts to justify these tendencies:

Aries.	Aggression.	Assertion.
Taurus.	Boastfulness.	Facts.
Gemini.	Reverse Psychology.	Blamelessness; Fair warning.
Cancer.	Histrionics.	Self-defense.
Leo.	Condescension.	Excellence.
Virgo.	Submission.	Accommodation.
Libra.	Intimidation.	Social Order.
Scorpio.	Triggering.	Illuminating.
Sagittarius.	False Promises.	Hope.
Capricorn.	Demands.	Obligations.
Aquarius.	Logic.	Logic.
Pisces.	Martyrdom.	Heroism.

Here is a set of healthy alternatives for POSITIVE PERSUASION. Remember that though these might be taboo they would only APPEAR to be so because one has been manipulated and one has internalized the manipulation in the form of a Super-Ego Dragon:

Aries.	Inspiration.
Taurus.	Support.
Gemini.	Communication.
Cancer.	Nurture.
Leo.	Generosity.
Virgo.	Insight.
Libra.	Diplomacy.
Scorpio.	Alternatives.
Sagittarius.	Encouragement.
Capricorn.	Advice.
Aquarius.	Vindication.
Pisces.	Healing.

If any of these do not make sense to you, you have not yet understood those signs.

Here are all so some DEFENSIVE TECHNIQUES for each sign to resist each form of manipulation:

Aries.	Aggression.	Patience.
Taurus.	Boastfulness.	Ambivalence.
Gemini.	Reverse Psychology.	Spitelessness.
Cancer.	Histrionics.	Masculinity.
Leo.	Condescension.	Egolessness.
Virgo.	Submission.	Frankness.
Libra.	Intimidation.	Resilience.
Scorpio.	Triggering.	Self-knowledge.
Sagittarius.	False Promises.	Verification.
Capricorn.	Demands.	Fortitude.
Aquarius.	Logic.	Feeling.
Pisces.	Martyrdom.	Gratitude.

Notice that by the same token as the weaknesses are SINS, these responses are VIRTUES.

Finally, here are ways to bypass one’s own weaknesses so as to prevent manipulation in the first place:

Aries.	Ego.	Humility.
Taurus.	Greed.	Generosity.
Gemini.	Competitiveness.	The Big Picture.
Cancer.	Complacency.	Action.
Leo.	Pride.	Magnanimity.
Virgo.	Envy.	Self-confidence.
Libra.	Vanity.	Community.
Scorpio.	Fear.	Courage.
Sagittarius.	Arrogance.	Curiosity.
Capricorn.	Dogma.	Experimentation.
Aquarius.	Zeal.	Consideration.
Pisces.	Pity.	Boundaries.

You are all welcome.

Dm.A.A.