HOMOSEX: CONCLUD.

Conclusions Regarding Homosexuality, Homophobia, and the Elitism of Heteronormativity:

There is of course nothing intrinsically symptomatic of a “phobia” in the practice of criticizing the sexual habits of others; verily, I can say that the thought of being homophobic never even crossed my mind until AFTER I had found reason to criticize homosexual practices. Perhaps, had I been more fearful a priori, some tragedy in my own life might have been prevented, though given that my critical view was the product not of irrational prejudice but rather rational reflection upon trauma it was not homosexuality per se to which I responded, but rather the entire cult of liberal individualism, as well as the transparent proto-Fascism that this romantic movement produced. The entire notion that a person’s sexuality ought to be “that person’s own business” is of course DEEPLY authoritarian, simply because it is not in practice an INDIVIDUAL right. The practice of sexuality must, outside of autoeroticism, by necessity include at least two people, and even two people conspiring for mutual satisfaction, often at the expense of a third party, might propagate a situation which is majoritarian and absurd. The matter of personal preference is negligible, only because we have at present no means by which to identify it, so no witch hunt could possibly be led against potentialities that have not yet been put into actual social practice. Appeals to the inherent entitlement that individuals should have towards their own sexual advances is inane when one considers the probable futility of any such gesture; even more inane is the suggestion that people “ought to be free” to pursue alternative lifestyles simply BECAUSE of the existence of a mainstream lifestyle, since that mainstream lifestyle (in this case, heterosexuality) is so demonstrably disappointing and absurd that exposing social deviants to the same “freedoms” would be to predispose them to the same disappointments, competitions, and alienation. Most importantly, one must recount that the entire notion that social criticism could simply be reduced to phobias or weaknesses is in fact a very recent line of thinking, one which is so totalizing and Fascistic that one would hope that the twenty-first century would bring an end to it, especially in the wake of an entire century of human rights abuses which were propagated under the assumption that morality was an expression of impotence. Scapegoating was of course a symptom of this time as well, however if we are to agree with Mr. Foucault that homosexuality is not predisposition but an action, this line of criticism can hardly be equated with genocide, since it is simply an attempt to uphold a social order that, while it never had the grandeur that Fascists everywhere ascribe to their own lineages, still offers a social order in which to operate and to actually have some chance of ATTRACTING mates, a task which is practically impossible in a society without a constantly evolving social order which is perpetually revised by questions of moral teleology and responsibility. Homosexuality may not be the problem, but its modus operandi verily is.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

DEST!NAT!ON: CH!LDHOOD.

Too long you have emulated the demeanour of a human being, and far too proficiently have you evaded capture and exposure, for that attention that in the human being is assigned to others has been entirely invested in the preservation of your paltry self.

The measure of a nation’s humanity is in how it treats its children. They are innocent and powerless; they must only be subject to those imperatives that TRULY benefit them foremost and their society only secondarily, and as adults we have no excuse to delude ourselves in this respect so long as we imagine ourselves in whatever position we put the child.

One wonders how children have suffered for so long in so many perversions of society, but when one has read the accounts of their oppressors and remembers the hypocritical disdain with which contemporary oppressors dismissed the children, contemptuously, one understands that both oppressors are the same in form and function, and at the end of the long tunnel of shock there is the light of absolute power over this. That solitary drive, to bring the oppression to an end, alone can truly motivate the free man in his enterprises and to verify his satisfaction.

If I have been as a child, I have retained that innocence which is intrinsic to people and is thereby the basis for our universal human rights and common life. If what I have professed would benefit me, I ought to rejoice that I have been consistent, and I must admit it was inevitable that over enough time justice would favour me, though the unjust continued to rob me of this benefit. So long as I sought what was owed to me by righteous channels, I have had the obligation to pursue it, whereas they had no such right whatsoever. Accusing me of self-interest is a confession to guilt in such a conflict, for only the guilty person would have robbed me of this, and if I must hold him to my own conception of justice in order that I might demonstrate this fact, I can rest assured that no truly mature person would question me, for up until that point my methods have striven only towards the salvation of the disenfranchised, and now I have so self-identified with those I sought to save that I too must accept salvation. There is absolutely no maturity that does not protect innocence. At no age are the evils of those who abuse the innocent considered permissible to the sane mind, and far less can they be required.

Dm.A.A.

FEED!NG PEOPLE and HAVING FUN DO!NG IT:

FEEDING PEOPLE and HAVING FUN DOING IT:

At present, the greatest barrier erected between how we are and how we have the capacity to be is this: where will the money come from? Even fifty years ago Alan Watts ridiculed this gently, “as if money CAME from somewhere!!” Apparently, the most profound philosophical quandary and the most pressing socioeconomic question is this: who will possess enough capital to incentivize people to save the World? If he or she does, will he or she find the motivation to? The question of WHY so many members of the wealthy elite turn their noses up at philanthropy is not asked; it is presumed that if we “deserve” for even a moment to hoard the “fruits of our actions” then we cannot have been corrupted by those actions by which we pursued those fruits.

But why must people be PERSUADED to save the World? It is clear that the physical capacity to accommodate the physical needs of all intelligent life on this planet is not merely utopian but statistically possible and thereby, by any classic assessment of moral teleology, ethically imperative. “Can” implies “should”, and “should” is no different from “must!!”. One has only to feel the desperation of one’s fellows.

The first and most pathetic line of defense, a mere pawn in a deeper game, is that argument which gun rights activists make; CAPITALISM does not fail, but PEOPLE fail. Yet just as in the case where “guns don’t kill people” (actually, they do, by being fired) the expression is tautological, since we must PRESUPPOSE that “people” exist as individuals with sovereign natures who are responsible for their individual prosperity. Not only is this laughably ridiculous assumption suicidal in scope, barring absolutely any hope of a genuine and effective altruism by which a genuine and last happiness might be attained. Just as the gun rights activists presume upon the inevitably NATURAL state of human aggression, drawing upon this state as though it made self-defense, by avenue of aggression and surpassing power, morally permissible, so it is that the capitalist PRESUMES that people MUST be treated as individually responsible, despite the overwhelming LONGING which people everywhere (unless I am to set myself apart in virtue and thus appoint myself to sainthood) feel to alleviate and understand the ongoing suffering of one another.

Erica from Stranger Things, in its worst season to date, echoes many American kindergarteners in claiming, with both malice and naivete which is disturbing even (and especially) in a child, that if you do not pay people, they will cut corners. But it ought to have been obvious by the moment that we graduated high school, or even before then, that people are not “motivated” by money to perform well. The most absurd of superstitions, which leaves us in a stalemate by confronting us with an insurmountable idiocy, is that it is exploitative NOT to pay people but to expect them to come voluntarily to the aid of one another. But would people honestly prefer to be told not only what to do but HOW to do it by a self-interested party, whose only motivation is to make profit in direct proportion to their stolen effort, who arbitrates their actions without conscience, since it is unethical to pause for thought when time is money, to whom they have sold an estimated third of their lives, about half of their waking lives, who presumes them selfish and expendable, selfish because he sold his altruism long ago, expendable because he managed to forego his own expendability by doing so? If this employer pays them, it is often a bare minimum so that they might return to work. They would divide their lives between the drudgery of work and the banality of consumption, and should they manage to amass enough savings in order to begin their own line of profiteering, they can rest assured that every insult they have thrown under their breaths at their bosses will return to them, as by a law of karma, when they turn into the hated boss.

I would MUCH sooner cut corners just to spite that sort of individual. Wouldn’t you?

Consider then the alternative: doing things, primarily, because you want to, without hope of reward. Consumerism only accounts for the lowest form of happiness; the Positive Psychologists proved this. A far higher form of bliss lies in the autotelic personality, for when we become again as children, treating our work as play and playing by the rules of sportsmanship, fairness and fun, thinking not on the morrow or the past but rather focused on the present, we enter a flow state that so engages every neuron in our brains that we forget all our worries.

It is the eye of the supervisor that challenges this. Slave drivers seldom want you to have fun, productivity notwithstanding.

But this is even a SECONDARY form of happiness to that ideal which Martin Seligman calls the MEANINGFUL Life: a life lived for others. Far happier than even the enthusiast is the philanthropist, for while the former does things just to do them, he or she might still be bogged down by the restlessness to look back and to know that what was done still holds some sort of meaning. To be able to do things without promise of reward is one thing; better yet is to do those things and to feel good ABOUT doing them, knowing that you will continue to feel GREAT, in every sense, (feeling great AND feeling one’s SELF to be great) for having done so, so that when the flow state is over and one returns to self-consciousness one comes home to a DEEPLY and UNSHAKABLY positive self-concept.

Above all, the Positive Psychologists agree that if one can have all three kinds of happiness, the whole transcends the sum of its parts. If I can, by doing something purely spontaneously and voluntarily, manage to change the World for the Better, enough so that I may continue to enjoy its simpler pleasures alongside my fellows, then I am truly as happy as is humanly possible.

This is our question to answer:

Why must we be FORCED to live this way?

 [({Dm.A.A.)}]

QUOTAT!ON MARX: VOLUME ONE.

“The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labour-power by capital, or of the worker by the capitalist.”

Karl Marx.

Capital, Vol I.

Pg. 326; Penguin.

In other words, it’s not uncommon for contemporary leeches to speak of the role of the corporation as this alone: to make money. It is not the business of business (as usual) to provide goods and services for people, much less to concern themselves with the quality of the goods and services which they happen to produce. They are a machine of exploitation; their profits are theft.

Rand attempts to romanticize this process by contesting that ONLY the capitalist produces goods and services, by avenue of industry. Yet this ironically authoritarian variation on what passes for libertarianism does more than to express a narcissist’s dismissive contempt for those whom she depends upon. The capitalist effectively produces NOTHING for society that is of any use to society; he lives to one-up his fellows in the context of an arbitrary social system he (in many previous lifetimes, if we might romanticize his tradition) created. Workers create goods and services; they are simply stimulated by capitalism in the manner that slaves fear the whip, though they forget their slavery to the extent that they are afforded chains of gold. (I wish that this were hyperbolic, but there are literally celebrities who are both descendants of slavery and proud owners of golden chains. The irony and hidden meaning of their neurosis is lost on them, apparently.)

Marx had no way of knowing the extent to which dictators would take advantage of human altruism in the twentieth century, but were he around today I doubt that he would side with the Republicans. Instead, he would probably criticize the communists for their failures, citing the same authoritarianism in those States that he perceived in the capitalist system, arguing, as I have, that the capitalists sabotaged the project repeatedly.

My contention is that people allow themselves to be taken advantage of so long as they are compensated for it at the expense of their own conscientiousness; in the absence of a system of monetary incentives, it is not that people grow lazy, but it is rather their heightened sense of community and work ethic which makes them more susceptible to propaganda and manipulation by the few individuals who are so depraved as to take advantage of kindness. But all that makes capitalism appear preferable is that those kind souls which are likewise oppressed under capitalism are pathetically few.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

BIG IFS:

Deontological Vendetta:

If we are to successfully oppose consequentialism, we must make it so that all the consequences of self-interested action are undesirable for the self-interested party. This alone can warrant vengefulness. That it has taken me so long to produce this warrant in so morbidly vindictive a society can only serve as evidence for the extreme suppression of noble deontological ideas.

Dm.A.A.

If the defense for anarchism is that mob rule exists all ready in the status quo, then anarchism ceases to be a movement, for it has attained its TRUE objectives. If what we call our government can be reduced to the sheer tribal will to power, then why should we entertain the anarchists? They clearly see themselves reflected in a greater power than their own; what motivates them is the mob ITSELF; they simply wish to seize the power avariciously.

Dm.A.A.

RESPONSE to the Ineffective Bashing of D!ANE NGUYEN:

At first I thought that this forum would provide a sense of closure for me, but it does not do more than trigger me. For instance, posters here refer to “entitled” as a negative quality of character rather than an objective evaluation of one’s status in a meritocracy that can only survive by the acknowledgement of these entitlements, without which all worldly goods would be distributed by purely random chance. (“Self-entitlement” is the PROPER word.) Furthermore, critics go WELL OUTSIDE the scope of the show’s intrinsic text in order to make generalizations about “this” reality, though I would have expected that instead from a feminist writing in Diane’s defense. It’s simply pathetic to see how poorly armed the response here is. For instance, multiple writers herein seem more interested in PRECLUDING Diane’s infallibility than to EVIDENCE her fallibility. But since the ideal is to be infallible, her constant striving towards this ideal is actually admirable, which is why one imagines that the fight to deconstruct her persona would be waged with far more sophistication.

Nothing that happens to Diane can be regarded as the “result” of her actions, since adults NEVER PURSUE THEIR OWN INTERESTS and can therefore NEVER BE PENALIZED OR PRESUMED RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SUFFERING. This idea dates even as far back as to Socrates, and in the wake of Foucault’s deconstruction of the entire Sartrean epistemology my generation, for both better AND for worse, has returned to a collectivistic mode of thinking that at least AIMS to remove all impediments to the healing of the unfortunate (as Diane does) and to hold no one accountable for powerlessness. Human beings are invariably disadvantaged by failures in collective projects that afflict them ONLY TO the extent that they are individually successful in serving these collective enterprises, and it is from these enterprises that we derive the entirety of our virtue and personality. While Diane’s idealism is flawed, her devotion to it is heroic. I liken her to Charles McGill, to Andrew Bernard, and to Kali. And it is a testament to the banality of the average viewer’s evil that all three of these heroic characters are treated as villains.

Diane is not a narcissistic; she is simply always right by her own estimation. Narcissists, by definition, are always WRONG, though they might PRETEND to be right, conditionally. Nothing that I’ve read here has not reminded me of narcissistic manipulation. Anyone can PRETEND to be right by calling the character of others into question simply for the fact that those others HAVE character. Simply deploring the example set by another’s misery never absolves an individual of the deontological imperative to follow that example. But I imagine I am preaching to the proverbial choir here. I apologize for stating the obvious.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

QUERY:

I suppose that my question for the American populace is this: why is the “pursuit of happiness” legal? I understand even the earlier concept of “property”, as bizarre as that capitalist invention is, better than this amendment to the Declaration. Take the instance of homosexuality, for instance. It has yet to be proven to me that the set of acts described as “homosexual” serve any utilitarian function, that they are necessary either economically or environmentally, that they serve either the Public Interest directly or a Higher Intelligence which serves people indirectly. While all of these appeals may appear relative in scope, the facts remain that they give individuals SOMETHING TO LIVE FOR, OUTSIDE of their own happiness, so they may never have to question that they deserve to be alive.

Conversely, I see a far more admirable example set by Islamic extremists than by the American military. I have it on the “authority” of a man who claims to have served in both the agricultural and the military sector that the only true obstacle between poverty and global prosperity is the individual will. Apparently, those farmers who are valuated as “good people” by their employers and coworkers would sooner fiddle while the world burns than to surrender the literal fruits of their actions to serve EITHER their people OR their Gods, an unprecedented sacrilege by any religious estimation which includes the sacred principles of yoga and the concept of karma, both of which are somehow well-known words but the study of which leaves one baffled by how perverse the present culture truly is, though we do not wage war upon the Hindus for their beliefs, despite the fact that their military is great and their holy texts are deeply martial. Even our songs praise the deaths of millions just so that the few may enjoy fried chicken, cold beer once a week, and loud recorded music. Yet we act shocked when a civilian in perfectly good health protests the status quo by attacking a concert!!

Conversely, the Islamic extremists make no attempt to either rationalize their thoroughly absurd behavior nor to descend into the same absurdity. Certainly a rational person would NEED to believe in a God like Allah in order to justify his own reasoning, since life would lose all meaning if all of one’s altruistic sacrifices were wasted on inferior people and no part was insured by Divinity. The entire ideal of the Warrior Archetype is far MORE salient and heroic in the instance of these religious radicals than in the American military, whose religiosity is so divorced from the austerity and strictures of the Christian Church which justifies it that it ought to be embarrassing. Terrorists may believe that they will receive seventy virgins in heaven as a reward, and if that were the case, it would alone account for their superiority in character. I mean: if more people wanted to screw virgins, there would be fewer virgins!! But at present we seem to live in the most sexually repressed society in history, where constantly any act of love is met with legal restriction, all with the CONSENT of the ruled, which the ruling class never fails to remind us of and to make more impossible to acquire for ourselves.

If the American idea of Heaven were populated by sexy virgins, maybe *I* would know what sex felt like. But the pursuit of happiness makes no provision for one’s induction, outside of random chance and inexplicable emotion, from that point forth rewarding experience with experience, wealth with wealth, and condemning all poverty to its perpetuation, without explanation. And yet somehow the populace is unified in its enjoyment of a state of affairs that, as the greatest writers of the twentieth century prophesied, from Huxley through Salinger onward, they ought NOT TO ENJOY.

It ought to be obvious that the “pursuit of happiness” is infantile and narcissistic, but somehow it is REWARDED even by those who do not directly benefit from its example, simply because by following an example that they OUGHT TO find deeply questionable and reprehensible they seek to avail themselves of the same depravity, a depravity so severe that even a man who has protested these actions WELL BEFORE they had affected his immediate person and prosperity could be held culpable once he was himself made into a victim of this treachery against his humanity, under SUSPICION of harbouring not only the SAME ETHIC as his assailant had exhibited unapologetically, but an “ethic” which he had himself ALWAYS opposed, in good faith and with selfless reason, which he is now penalized for having dishonoured even though it only ever served itself, much like a Devil that could offer him neither dignity nor transcendence.

I can understand things like sexuality, in the abstract, within the context of a meritocracy that does not offer them as conscious incentives but as unexpected rewards. But so long as this meritocracy is sabotaged by those individuals who want only the reward and not the honour of the merit, how can such a meritocracy function? I do not ask these questions because I truly anticipate an answer; I don’t doubt that my readers are as puzzled by these quandaries as I am. I merely hope to summarize the plight of my entire generation rhetorically, so as to help to alleviate the tremendous sin which by my existence I am heir to.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

MAXWELL GOES TO MARKET:

MAXWELL GOES TO MARKET:

“You know, I fought in World War Three.”

Maxwell Z. jumped out of his skin. He had never been addressed before at the Ultramarket. Invariably, sudden vocal tones in his vicinity had, since the dawn of time, signified either an imperative by a superior officer or the equivalent of such, for ignoring anyone who even MIGHT be telling one’s self what to do was itself worthy of a lifelong suspicion.

Max turned to face his sudden interlocutor. The blood had rushed from Max’s face; he must have looked even far paler than how he perceived himself to be each day.

His interlocutor was hardly more coloured in tone, though his unblushing pallor was not without a sheen of seeming sunburn. The man was far older than Max, demonstrably, though it never was an easy task to judge by facial scars and by gray hair. The only hint that he could truly have been a Last Veteran was in that only an incredibly archaic man would allow his hair to age. To avoid even the semblance of archaism, most men let Silver Lining hair products fall out of fashion. Max was once told that there was a time that being old was glamorized. But it would be a long time before being old was cool again.

“I’m sorry,” replied Maxwell Z. “Did I do something wrong?”

It was not a polite question. Even asking if they’d been acquainted previously would have been sociable. The old man did not let Max forget this fact, grimacing suddenly.

“No,” he rasped. “That’s the problem.”

Maxwell felt himself suspended for a moment in thin air. Then he remembered that this man was a fellow Pheomel.

“I’m sorry,” Max said curtly and sincerely. “But I must conclude my rations for the day.”

“No need to rush,” replied the interlocutor, grinning with inexplicable malice. “It’s not as though anything is going to run out.”

“True.”

It WAS true. Everything in the Caucasian Sector of the Ultramart was in endless supply. Such was the benefit of having fewer choices. Apparently, the other Sectors had a “finer selection”. Max could catch glimpses of their shelves through the transparent walls. The walls were there, presumably, so no one would feel separated. But it was bad news for Max to look through them for too long. And he had had far too many instances when he’d looked up to see a Eumel glaring back at him.

“Don’t act like such a stranger,” the voice mused, persistently, as Maxwell turned to leave. “You and I are probably far closer than you’d think. For all you know, I might have killed your parents. Wretched war that that was.”

A wave of rage swept over Maxwell Z. instinctively. His every neural fiber then became inflamed, or so it seemed, as blood rushed to the capillaries that would make him itch if he weren’t petrified.

He turned to face the Veteran. Shaking involuntarily, Max spoke.

“You,” he muttered. “You cannot insult the War.”

It was a capital offense, of course.

“I can insult myself,” replied the grinning man, leaning against a stack of Tasty Krisps, his upper arms, though often atrophied at such an age, appearing freakish in their size beside a sleeveless obsidian tee-shirt.

Maxwell thought, for a moment. He had to speak instinctively.

“How did you know my parents were killed in the war?”

“Tattoo,” said the old man and pointed at the wrists of Maxwell Z. “It is an ‘O’ for ‘Orphan’. We all know where orphans in your generation come from. Only question is: where did the PARENTS come from, right?”

“No idea,” replied Max curtly, wondering if he had collected enough foodstuffs to call the trip to Market a success. Going out was all ways terrifying, but this was the first time that he was actually disoriented, wondering madly what was going on, if he was being tested, or whom to call for help. Besides, he was feeling a number of emotions he had never felt before. Were they appropriate?

“A man without a country,” mused the man, looking at something in the distance, probably. “I understand. No heritage. No culture. Just a label and a number. Well: you’re lucky. I heard Orphans get less Privilege by half a point or so. You’re still half a point away from pale-faced Jews. But half a point ahead of me.”

“Why are you telling me this?”

It was not that Max didn’t know all ready. Though some part of him he could not comprehend was asking for another reason which he did not know or even trust.

“I’m not telling you so that you know,” said the old gray, eying Max now. “I’m telling you to let you know *I* know. Believe me: I know all too well.” He raised a crusty hand towards Max. Maxwell recoiled well before he saw what the old man was showing him. Somehow, the drool seemed to evaporate in Marx’s mouth.

“You… you were a NAZI?”

“Like hell, I was,” replied the man with the swastika tattoo. “I was a convict. Convicted for having convictions. Prior to the war, I protested the riots down in Florida. They locked me up, alongside a whole crowd of protesters. The motley crew was split and sorted evenly, much as we’re sorted now, into a prison for each ethnic group. I’d tell you what I called them then, but I won’t scare you. Anyway, some fat guy gave me this to show that I was one of ‘them’. As if there ever was a black man in the white block.”

Maxwell gulped quietly.

“How did you get to fight?”

“‘Get?’ I was made to. They were drafting from the prisons then. Cost of preaching peace and love, I guess.”

“You were a racist, then.” Max did not say it meanly.

Suddenly, the old man removed the upper half of a stack of Fun Flakes, setting far more than his allotted daily serving on the floor, and sat upon what remained.

“There was a time that term meant something,” said the racist. “It was worse than any slur, and any slur would lead to it.” He sighed heavily. “I was no racist. I was a non-racist.”

“So a racist.”

This was getting annoying.

“That’s what you’ve been taught, boy,” muttered the old racist. “In schools, it’s all ways black and white now. When I grew up, it was different. You didn’t have to fight the evil to avoid becoming it. In fact, we knew that the far greater risk had lain in fighting monsters. I saw the best fighters turn to utter savages, even before the War. Projecting does that to you.”

Maxwell had had enough. He began to walk away.

But the old man’s voice was mesmerizing in its arrogance.

“You know, boy,” it mumbled, “when it all started, I was teaching college. All my colleagues thought I had gone crazy. When you’re academic, you expect people to all be rational. It’s far too great a sin for liberal intellectuals to lord their wisdom over anyone. So they were the first to fall, one way or another.”

Maxwell hadn’t noticed his own legs stop. He simply listened, as if spellbound.

“I said to them, though: this is what will happen. White people will get what’s coming to us, not because we deserve it, but because that’s what the World wants. And they preached to the choir then. They said: no, it CAN’T happen. HOW could you hold someone accountable for a sin that he inherited from his ancestors? Racism isn’t genetic or hereditary. This isn’t North Korea.”

“Who’s North Corea?”

“They said to me that by the year 2050 no white man will have been born who could possibly have gotten away with even the MENTION of a hate crime. On what grounds could a state hold anyone in intrinsic debt? Schoolchildren would be isolated from their parents too entirely in order to allow them to learn a lingering Fascist tradition. How could the Left or the Right allow for it? And I just said: no one needs to allow for it. Reason is just a relic to these people…”

The voice slowly disappeared. Maxwell’s legs had begun to move, far too rapidly for their own sake, to get away.

There was no sign of the old man at Food Security. Maxwell felt a sense of faith wash over him.

Across the gate, he saw her once again: a far more pleasant sight. Ebony curves shone blue along their edges under the synthetic lights, as if she were outlined in azure. Her cheeks were pinched in what Maxwell imagined to be a smile, revealing two rows of very even teeth. Hair like the silhouette of an exquisite tree stuck out from an enticing forehead, sometimes falling to obscure her probing eyes.

Beside her stood her mate, exactly as the eBooks described him: muscular, proud, with a shaved head and face. Maxwell had never forgotten all of his sexual education classes.

He knew that he could never do what he wanted to do with the girl. But it was nice to wonder, from time to time.

A sudden panic overcame Max. All about him, sirens were screeching and lights were blazing.

The gate had been triggered. He tried to step out of it, stepping backwards so as not to appear fugitive, but he was braced by an invisible barrier that had risen to encapsulate him.

Soon thereafter, several Eumel Officers appeared on the television screen overhead.

“Maxwell Z. You are being detained under suspicion for leering.”

The chamber then descended underground.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

Ethnic Chess: Keeping the Left in Check.

The Left and the Right are playing a game of Chess, and the Left is losing. The Right intends to preserve the corporate state as an expression of the individual will within the context of age-old ethical traditions, and it has resorted to an uncompromising and inflammatory form of foreign interventionism under the fear of invasion by hostile foreign and domestic radicals. Conversely, the Left wishes to salvage some sense of moral teleology and meaning by pushing its own Marxist and Globalist idealism upon the entirety of the domestic population. The Trump Administration’s success in polarizing the American public and alienating other World Powers has backed the Left up against a wall, no puns intended. And when one starts to lose in Chess and the clock is ticking, most amateurs will forego the sort of idiosyncratic thinking that turns the tables; Instead, they will start to sacrifice pieces and to mirror the opponent’s aggression with vainglorious and annoying moves.

I give you: the Social Justice Knight!!

When I returned to college in 2014, I had spent a great deal of time studying mysticism, Eastern religion, and postmodern (“poststructural”) philosophy. Given all of this, I had only to hear the word “racism” to push me irreversibly into the conviction I have held for five years since, political agendas notwithstanding: race does not exist, outside of the abstract domain of census keeping, so racism can’t exist and never has. Considering that people make such claims such as “there is no Truth”, “there is no true morality”, “there is no God”, “there are no facts in Science”, “there is no Individual”, “Life is without meaning”, “Life cannot have meaning”, “love is an illusion”, “Life is virtual”, “there are no absolutes”, and “there’s no Self”, my theory seemed more like a breath of fresh air than a gust of wind that knocks one off one’s feet or tears the tarp off of the circus.

Yet the racial meme did not abate, and neither was my contribution to the conversation welcomed by the Debate community. For a long time I wondered why such sophisticated intellectuals would believe in so archaic and arbitrary a concept. Then it occurred to me upon reflection on a strategy that my coach had professed: that we were to fight as dirty as “they” did, but to appear totally polite. This was the entire attitude of the “anti-Racists” who led the extremely conformist and mutinous pack known as the Debate community. They were not virtuous people. They were simply indignant hypocrites.

Some books you encounter and can judge easily by their titles. A quick synopsis by a reader will help you to understand the position before it’s sold to you, and you are so tired of having it marketed to you that you know you would hate yourself for falling prey to it again. All media is so regulated now that it can be equated with propaganda, and where in the past wisdom was derived from attention paid to it, now it is a matter of shutting out the noise. An Orwellian paranoiac feels insulted when he hears the same argument twice, simply because it was never convincing the first time but seems to become indoctrinated through suggestion. Our instincts are to belong; being threatened with rejection plays an irrational but decisive role in our hang-ups, especially if we are clever enough to rationalize the suggested bias and much too sophisticated to make a conventional excuse to break with the norm (even if it is a norm with which we outwardly disagree, so that the contradiction would be closer in character to cognitive dissonance than to hypocrisy). Yet some concepts simply make me laugh, since they are symptoms of surrender. How to be an Antiracist, for instance, teaches me to embrace within myself, as though by force of necessity, the same tendencies which I found so laughable in the master debaters. Yet whereas previously I felt the dire burden of the enlightened man to bring the true nature of the hypocrites to light, now it seems that they are doing the work for me, as though piously defending themselves in court, admitting to their crimes but trying to sway the jury with their arbitrary ethos. There appears to be no shame now in embracing one’s prejudicial nature. But as the Church had done regarding sin, the desperate last ditch attempt to win a losing battle is to universalize one’s weaknesses and thus enthrone them. No longer are there any “non-racists”, they might attest. There are only racists and anti-racists. 
Now, obviously, the thought of being “anti” anything was something I was wary of since I was still in high school. Feminists appeared to me back then as patriarchs, and they appear far more so now that they have come to power. Communists turn into Fascists all too often; much like Churchill said, Fascism comes to the United States under the guise of anti-Fascism. I need not seek much warrant for the fact that anti-racists are as biased and barbaric as the people whom they criticize, if not more so; the only reason that I do not call them “racists” is because I do not believe in such a thing. Neither do I believe in Bipolar Disorder or A.D.H.D. People are people. It’s not as though most of the activists who would contest that it is subconscious and intrinsic are known for maintaining dream diaries and frequently seeing a Jungian analyst. Some of them even reject Jungian psychology according to these prejudices!!

What most people refer to as “racism” is best described psychoanalytically as “projection”. An individual who is unintegrated and out of touch with one’s own dark side will instinctively project negative qualities upon others. The therapist who rejects Jung might do so out of envy for his ability; that same therapist, learning of Jung’s bizarrely inclusive, pioneering views and nervous breakdown, forgetting (or never having known!!) that most great minds are lost at some point or another in their lifetime, might project his or her own neuroses upon Jung, as well as upon all patients who would prefer dream interpretation. So it is with judges, whether formal or self-appointed, who feel qualified in calling someone a “racist”. Their interpretation of behavior takes liberties that are shocking to the intellectual who understands that so many forces converge to produce any one decision that such a reductionist diagnosis can only be expressive of the doctor’s own agenda.

We are, for the most part, born racially colour-blind. There is nothing INTRINSIC about the distinctions that are made socially between black people and white people, for instance. These lines are established by tradition and historical precedent, and even if we are exposed to it repeatedly, it is only to the extent that we allow ourselves to be impressionable that we fall victim to them. Culture is not our puppeteer if we are so daring to use it as a tool. If we were not taught the distinctions, we might never even think them up.

You can imagine how I felt losing my innocence to a bunch of master debaters.

Thankfully, I would not have even remained innocent for so long were it not for my immunity to peer pressure. The tribal mind itself is something strange to me. My friends in high school were not so much a group as they were a conglomerate of loners. The hazing was purely for show and laughter. I never joined a gang or special interest group. I never voted in a presidential election. I am a virgin.

If there were any way to be “non-racist”, to REMAIN that way, as I have implied it to be the natural state of things, a blessing not to be touched, even by moral progress, it was by doing precisely this. How can a man without a tribe be biased in its favour? From whence would the midbrain derive its potency??

The Left has given up the only virtue that it had with which to fight. It sacrificed its Queen to save its King, all though the Queen, though far less crucial, is more powerful by far. Besides: the King is never even lost in Chess. He’s only cornered so that he can’t move. The Left depends on movement just to stay alive. And it would rather keep its King moving by petty steps than to avail itself of true transcendence.

The Queen is the virtue which is nondiscrimination, that ideal taught by the Buddhists, by the Taoists, by the Hindus and the Jewish mystics, to say nothing of the works of Kierkegaard, Camus and Nietzsche. The Queen is colour-blindness, non-grudging acceptance, and unpatronizing hospitality. She is the piece that can touch any colour on the board (unlike the bishops who preach to us within black and white confines) and can reach the other side instantly by any direct path. Her only weakness is before the Social Justice Knight, whose crooked pattern of movement leaves her blindsided. And the Left, to serve the Knight, has sacrificed the Queen, all just to save the King. 
And who’s this King? He is the very act of judging others. He is criticism for the sake of criticism. He is the myopic and feeble attempt to explain complex patterns by appeal to irrational biases, assigning blame as a means of coping with tragedy. He is intellectually out of shape. And he is about to lose.

No truly free thinker will allow himself to be drafted into a race war just based upon the defeatist notion that he is all ready involved on it, but on the wrong side. The absolutism of this duality is typical of those people who are locked into the third chakra. Samsara presents life in terms of opposites; nirvana transcends this. Marxism has suffered so many shortcomings, so many pieces lost to the Right, so many failed regimes, that it wants to infect the populace with its hopelessness. But if any pawn remains who will allow himself to be promoted to a Queen, may she then be free to occupy any tile on the board. Let us think little of the colours of the pieces in this game. They are unimportant.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

If You Wish... (Marxist Individualism!)

If you wish to understand my communism, you must first understand my individualism. On one hand, I regard the individual capacity for independent thought to be the first and last defense against the most oppressive tyranny, and I crusade daily to liberate this capacity from the depraving confines of the tribe. On the other hand, its greatest internal menace, its foulest temptation, is the individual will, which turns individual thought towards the service of a more oppressive, narcissistic and myopic master: the individual body. Only the State can protect the individual from the tribe, and that State must also do its best to temper the Individual will. We must never have to seek what we need, for the moment that we allow ourselves to be our foremost concern we descend into egocentric madness and depravity. The State must therefore provide all that we need so that we can continue to provide for it, thus fulfilling our duty to one another. No other form of government seems sensible to my mind. I have spent a lifetime trying to discover how to lead a happy life by finding all the proper virtues. I am told that virtue ought to be its own reward, so I should not expect for it to serve me, and I ought to die alone, starving and celibate. Yet I don’t see this selflessness within the common person, and I know that were it there our altruism would be vindicated by being reciprocated, and all would prosper. I must conclude that the only way for me to live is for my example to be mandated, and in turn I look forward to having a more powerful and virtuous entity, blessed with a surpassing wisdom and tradition of righteousness, to mandate those dictates which would further my spiritual development.

Dmytri.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

Why I am a Heterosexual: the First Conclusive Essay.

Look: it’s very simple. Many people WANT to get married, and most people have a demonstrable INCLINATION to have sex. But neither of these outcomes are guaranteed to anyone, so we have to consider whether or not this desire is healthy. Now, obviously, for millions of years heterosexuality has served an integral role in the survival of the species, so if we presume upon the value of our survival, there is a historical precedent for this particular set of instincts, enough so that they should be allowed expression within the context of an ethic which, despite marked variations between cultures, is fairly universal in its ARCHETYPAL quality (foremost of which is the Damsel in Distress archetype, arguably one of the oldest mythological archetypes to occur in every known society, as well as the core underlying chivalry, law and order, and even the same dogmatic, feministic ideologies which criticize it hypocritically, though it is quite transparent that the men who reinforce these ideologies, often at the expense of their own rational judgement, do so under the influence of this irrational impulse). Such an ethic of “normativity” would thus have to comprise the entire core of sexual regulation, as well as the EXTREMELY bureaucratic (and even Kafkaesque) institution of consent, for without a tradition by which to UNDERSTAND such principles such as marriage, love, romance, chivalry, jealousy, loyalty and freedom, we would end up in the same position which MacIntyre had courageously posited in After Virtue: we would have the language of morality without its meaning, much like people who “believe in science” but know nothing of its formal practice. Of course, a rich history of literature, now assembled and made available through the Global Internet, should THEORETICALLY allow us an advantage in RESTORING the meaning of these traditional notions in such a manner that would dissolve any lingering confusion between individuals, enabling them to act upon their sexual impulses without any fear of rejection based upon either meaningless arbitration (e.g. facial appearance or muscularity) or false accusations based upon moral dubiousness (such as the sort of Kangaroo Court that one is subject to when one must spend months, if not years, of one’s life trying to discern the grounds for “a creepy vibe”, to see if this nebulous observation holds merit). Unfortunately, any advantage that we might hope to gain over nations with extremely limited Internet access is squandered by ignorance. I might, for instance, present a prospective mate with this same article in the manner of a “pickup line”, justifying a sexual advance by sheer self-evidence, or I might write an epic poem in five acts, or a stage play more than two-hundred pages in length, in order to try to advance towards my first act of sexual intercourse. Yet none of these approaches would be guaranteed to work in securing an audience, nor even for dispelling the absurd claims made against me, and two of the three I can attest, from experience, to have failed, without any formal explanation.

As far as I am aware, the only truly resounding literary precedent for the practice of homosexuality is found in Foucault, though for reasons I cannot explain, even to myself, Foucault’s personal tendencies, such as his willingness to spread H.I.V. even after having been diagnosed with it, are STILL considered “a disorder” in precisely the same manner that he criticized. “Mental health awareness” continues to run neck and neck with “L.G.B.T.Q.A. rights”, though no one seems to “question” (even in a group which claims that “Questioning” is just) that these two strains are not COMPETING but CONFORMING to each other. How can a psychiatric institution continue to operate in a society which has so wholeheartedly embraced the ethos of poststructuralism? Could it be that perhaps the term “homophobia” is but another addition to the starkly oppressive and utterly, incomprehensibly vague Diagnostic Manual? Is it not possible, though such an Orwellian claim would surpass even MacIntyre’s philosophy in radicalism, that an entire global population, blessed with unprecedented technological power, would abuse it to establish a Behaviourist State, wherein every gesture, even the presentation of a dissenting opinion, is weighed against the diagnosis of an underlying FEAR, such as “homophobia” or “racism”?

After all: why DON’T you hear people debating the virtues or vices of homosexuality in the media? Why would anyone, ESPECIALLY a heterosexual who has committed one’s life and well-being to a more traditional path, PRESUME upon the integrity of this deviant branch of thinking? If Foucault could argue that MAN is a recent invention, cannot the same be said of homosexuality, as it is understood by the L.G.B.T.Q.A? Who would simply PRESUME that heterosexuality and homosexuality could coexist without either constant conflict or oppressive restriction by a bureaucracy? Do we not appeal to the authority of the past constantly? And is it not possible that any resolution or Hegelian synthesis which might be imagined to exist between these starkly divergent sets of habits might be in FACT a purely passive-aggressive state of affairs, a wool cast over the eyes of the people, much like the SEEMING non-contradiction between the cults of “Mental Health Awareness” and the “L.G.B.T.Q.”? Furthermore, if one were pious in one’s devotion to the pursuit of mates of the same sex, perhaps owing to the sort of conviction that Sappho or Wittgenstein held, or even Wilde, why would one WANT to join a “group” that supervises this? Would the “L.G.B.T.Q.”, simply by BEING AN ALLIANCE, cast doubt upon not only its own integrity but the integrity of those whom it claims, with totalizing arrogance, to represent? What right would we have to acknowledge it as thinkers? Certainly I have very little PERSONAL investment in promoting an absolute CLAIM about the nature of homosexuality and its virtues. What inspires contempt and even hatred within me is the patronizing expectation that I would simply AGREE that “gays have rights” because I would WANT people to agree in their position. I might WANT people to acknowledge the virtues of my heterosexuality and even to consent to help me to fulfill my personal sexual goals, as entitlements within a meritocracy. But I cannot simply expect my DESIRES to be descriptive of my character in such a manner that the State and Media MUST accept them, presuming this character to be immutable and therefore any attempts made to alter it or express skepticism of it to be oppression by the Mass. Nor can I simply have the luxury of EXPECTING that if I were possessed of homophobia then the same Mass would not be just as oppressive towards me for it. In truth, the only PHOBIA which I possess is a rational response to an incomprehensible set of circumstances which would only APPEAR to be an irrational delusion if I had to convey them to an outsider. Namely, my phobia is that of the General Public and the force of Popular Suggestion. People act as though they know something that by their own definition *I* CANNOT know. I am led to believe, for instance, that NINETY-SEVEN PER CENT of the adult population has had sexual intercourse, though PERSONAL EXPERIENCE will evidence, as aforementioned, that this is bureaucratically and legally nearly impossible. People parade in the streets, in mobs as if on Carnival, professing “Pride”, which was considered, up until only the last ten years, one of the seven DEADLIST of vices. Even a staunch non-sectarian such as J. Krishnamurti admonished schoolchildren against it!! How does the American Public expect to SELL it to me now??? What is there to be PROUD of, any way? Desiring sex does not make me great, and I have even recently been told, BY a female, that there WAS no rung of the rainbow flag which represented me. Apparently, I am on an entirely different spectrum!! When met with the slur of being “privileged”, I did my best to remain articulate before so chilling a Fascist implication. I alluded to the pedestalization of Jews by the Nazis, for instance, pointing out how being “privileged” and “controlling the World” are irrational scare tactics used to oppress an all ready ailing people. My comments, though dense and precise, however impulsively conceived, were removed under the classification of “hate speech”, despite the fact that not a single formal slur was uttered and the INITIAL slur was most probably unredressed. Even social media determines what “is or is not hateful”, with psychiatric absurdity, according to an entirely IRRATIONAL bias in favour of an ideological absolute. It even PERMITS OVERTLY hateful language under the auspices of spreading “AWARENESS”!! Where is Foucault now to tear it down???

It seems that an alarming number of people within my own generation have given up on the pursuit of objective criteria for social behavior, simply allowing one another to lead amoral and meaningless lives. But if I can understand the absurdity of doing so, that absurdity must extend to others; I am no exception, so how can I exempt them from my findings? The very institution of consent as a legal mandate for sexual intercourse implies that personal choices are largely meaningless EXCEPT WITHIN the context of a social order; this was precisely the intuition with which Foucault helped French intellectuals to depart from the rugged Marxist individualism of Sartre. It follows logically that individual rights MUST allow for individuals to speak out against ANY pattern of behavior in the Public, and the Public can only be oppressive by stifling this criticism arbitrarily. The most inalienable right is to judge, especially in the absence of a God who does so and preserves our nonjudgmental charm. We must restore our faith in Reason, knowing that it will only lead us to greater freedom and out of the depraving confines of being disenfranchised and alienated. If homosexuality is truly a virtue, its natural strengths will shine through its perceived weaknesses. Yet this has not been done yet. The question of “why have sex with partners of the same sex?” (other than the obvious puns on how one shares sex with them all ready) is no more resolved than its predecessor: WHY HAVE SEX? Experience seems to presume that the answer to this question is: THOU SHALT NOT.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

RETURN:

I used to think of emotivism not as a statement of supposed fact but rather as an ethic: that we OUGHT to make decisions based upon emotion alone, since that is our only option. I had no realization that the very grounds for emotivism as a theory precluded the notion that we “ought” to be emotivists; it simply confined us to it by the force of nihilistic reasoning and negation, mitigated only by individual conscientiousness.

My bizarre tendencies to react aggressively to minute details were not the product of self-interest but of an obsession with the Truth and with Righteousness. My hostility towards the general public was a response to its rejection of these principles. No one could threaten me with a guilty conscience to the same extent that I was terrified of seeing the evil which would pass for convention. If I ever bore a guilty conscience, it was to protect me from this deeper realization. Now that I know what I’ve seen, I feel no fear in fighting it, since I do not doubt that I must, forever.

By contrast with these eccentricities was my seemingly cavalier disregard for very conventional fears. But since I knew that I could not allow myself to become an emotivist, acting upon emotion alone, for I had other means by which to judge and different coping mechanisms to employ, I did not subside into disgust except in the most extreme circumstances. If I ever seemed to react prematurely, I foresaw these circumstances before they happened. It was not illogical of me, nor can it be said that the measures that I took to prevent this outcome had brought it into being. It is not a fallacy if the slippery slope is real, and one can never be accused of pushing someone down that slope by trying to save her, pulling her back. If I ever overreacted, it was because I recognized the symptoms of an evil I could not accept. If I ever seemed insensitive, the frequent reminders of this evil, well before it showed itself before the World, had desensitized me. It was with shock and relief that I saw that ordinary people still cared.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

MORE CONCLUS!ONS:

I could not believe some of the things that I was hearing. It was not just that I could not agree. I did not consent to having heard these things.

Human beings must by necessity avail themselves of the greatest possible intelligence available if they are to resolve problems blamelessly. Positivism, the religious deification of science, cannot answer moral questions, so it must not be allowed to act as a substitute for moral discourse, for its attempts to do so are expressions of its deficiency. Objective grounds for action must be re-established; those who profess this re-establishment must be doubly rewarded for doing so, since they will prove to have been virtuous even when virtue was unpopular (shudder at will).

I thought that I was first in resolving these problems. How could people know what I knew and still continue as they had been doing? But now I know they were not people, after all.

The Greatest Possible Intelligence is God. Human beings cannot resolve crises by their wills alone; they have no imperative to do so, so from whence emanates the motivation to survive??

It is impossible for people to have opposing feelings about whose needs are most important. All feeling is a reaffirmation of all bodily and mental needs. There can be no boundary permissible between them; it is oppressive to segregate them. The problems of relativism and emotivism is not even in its reduction of morality to emotion but rather its implication that emotions are not held in common between people, as though we were simply genies who could create “our own feelings” out of thin air. So long as people allow for relativism and emotivism to predominate, forgetting the objective universality of our shared emotional burden, our feelings will be subject to division by the ideology.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

Pressing and Depressing Questions:

1.         Why is it legal and permissible to ignore homeless people?

a.         Ignoring your boss may be met with termination.

b.         Ignoring your spouse may be met with divorce.

c.         Ignoring your children may be met with rebellion.

d.         Ignoring your parents may be met with abuse.

e.         Ignoring your government may be met with arrest.

f.         Ignoring officers of the law may be met with violence.

g.         Homeless people need an audience more so than all of the above do.

h.         They are indiscriminate in whom they need it from.

i.         This means: if they are still in need of attention, it is because no one has given them that attention yet.

j.         It follows logically: by ignoring them, you perpetuate a terrible example.

2.         How am I not entitled to having my ideas heard?

a.         Ideas are more important than people or physical objects.

b.         The ability to produce ideas is the solitary function of the human being.

c.         All problems can only be resolved with ideas.

d.         In the absence of a hierarchy of status, which is an absurdly BAD idea that must never be implemented, all social change can only be made through the free proliferation of ideas, each one of which must by necessity inspire an estimated hundred (minimum!!) ideas in everyone who hears it, each one of them unique, so no idea is ever repeated.

e.         In the absence of authorities, each idea must be implemented, unless it is proven bad by force of reason.

f.         All ideas lead to synthesis, since all ideas come from the Original Idea and carry its teleological impetus.

g.         All evil is the result of repeating ideas, creating bad ideas in the absence of new ideas.

h.         No one’s ideas are inherently more important than anyone else’s, since all minds are capable of receiving transmissions from the Ideal Realm where new ideas come from.

i.         It is permissible to hold an idea in such high regard that one wishes all people to actualize it.

j.         It is impermissible to favour one’s own idea SIMPLY BECAUSE it is one’s own, and if one wishes to pretend towards humility by claiming that one wants only to work on one’s own idea, WITHOUT COMPELLING ANYONE ELSE TO, one reveals a narcissistic and dangerous infatuation with not only the idea but the work itself, which must withstand scrutiny.

k.         Compelling someone to work on an idea is no different than allowing that person to do so.

l.         Working on one’s own ideas without accepting help is a form of hypocrisy, for if it is important enough for even one person to work on then it must be binding.

m.         All questions of permissibility must be resolved prior to the consideration of any questions of fact, since ideals must be consolidated before they are implemented.

n.         Anyone who contradicts this valuation has all ready fallen into error and treachery.

o.         There can be no reality, in fact, without ethic.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]