Response to De-construction of Intelligence.

While I usually enjoy your lectures I have to deeply dis-agree with this one. Unpopular I know. It may confer some Resentiment.

1.       Since I mentioned Nietzsche let us get straight intuit. You mentioned that Nietzsche rejected democracy on the principle that the Herd could not lead. Nietzsche’s elitism is founded. You all so spoke of Febrazi and the notion of owning up to one’s own skills and short-comings. I personally never aspired to be regarded as “philosophical”, “deep”, “kind”, or “brilliant”. In fact at times in my life I felt like I lacked all four of these qualities. Oh, and “mysterious”. But if one is constantly referred to in this way, with affection and at times even envy, ought one to DENY that with some sort of false humility? That would be to lack febrazi and actually to lack humility. There must be SOME thing there that people see in me. And I seem to see it in certain others.

2.       Which brings me to this point. The perception of intelligence neither as social function or a biological function. As Husserl brilliantly intuited the perception precedes the labeling of it. And as Marcel pointed out we tend in (and there-by post-)modernity to identify too often with our functions. So it is that that professor in the film Waking Life claimed that his discontent with the post-modernists stemmed from the fact that the more one regards the individual as a confluence of forces the more some thing absolutely essential (or existential) is omitted. So for you to dismiss Intelligence as non-existent entirely seems like an atheistic positivistic argument: Just because we cannot empirically prove its existence, God is disproven. Yet we forget what Buber said about the I-Thou dialogue. We forget that in a state of Relationship we might be able to perceive Intelligence or even a Divine Intelligence, but this can never be quantified scientifically because Analysis belongs to the realm of the I-It relationship.

3.       Intelligence is marked by a kind of attentiveness, curiosity and receptivity. It is marked by what Marcel calls Availability. The intelligent person, when she agrees with you, makes you feel incredible, [ and even surprised, as though you were just shown another dimension of an existing conviction or saw your own views with greater clarity and a more secure confidence ] and when she disagrees with you, she challenges you. Conversely the stupid person’s affirmations all ways strike suspicion and seem superficial or seductive, where as dis-agreements, far from inspiring any thing, only tend to frustrate, because they tend to arise over dogmas that are unyielding. The dogmatic person tends to force you to adhere to your own dogma, lest you be a hypocrite, even if he does not believe in that dogma his self. Only the intelligent person can help you to dis-entangle your self from this dogmatic mess. And ultimately that SENSE of Confirmation, of genuine Love and Attention, must be valued as a fact ( to re-call your Wittgenstein lecture. ), and if bad company corrupts character one must sever ties with stupid people even if it pains one’s self to do so affectively. But so long as it is difficult to do so one at least knows that one’s own emotions are not “getting in the way”.

4.       You mentioned Sartre. De Beauvoir. All of these people. As being Brilliant. Brilliance does not seem to be a product of their conditions. It is Mysterious, as Marcel would say, not problematic. You seem to reduce intelligence to a construct of hierarchical school systems. Yet many of your arguments are hierarchical rather than rhizomatic in nature. That is to say that you argue that there is no evidence for intelligence, and so it must not exist, because only scientists believe it to. Well that is not necessarily true, and it prioritises scientific thought over intuition. Or you argue that it is created by school systems which are less progressive than others. Well, no. There are a number of stupid people at Yale Berkeley and Case. There are a number of geniuses at Palomar College. [Look it up!] I would not dis-miss the few genuine people in my life with whom I can talk for four hours straight with-out problem but with enthusiasm and inspiration as the mere products of their environment. One of them was a home-less hitch-hiker. Another deals with the superficiality of her class-mates and professors daily, some times to tremendous degrees of struggle apparently. And my ostensibly “brilliant” friends can be some of the stupidest because they have cleverness and academic drive; that’s it.

5.       Intelligence is really miss-understood. I think that it is a rare gift. I could expound but instead I will conclude. People miss-take genius for madness often. It is not fair. Most brilliant people are brought up to believe that every one is equal so they project their intelligence upon people. And then they get screwed over and/or locked up in mental asylums because they expect people to understand them. But perhaps you as a University Professor do not have to deal with this.

That is all that I will say on the matter.

With respect and trepidation,

Dmitry.

Dm.A.A.

Post-scriptum: Just look at YouTube comments usually to see what I mean about stupidity.

A Critique of the Rape Culture.

[Read my script prior to reading this so that it does not skew your individual reading and perception of it.]

A Critique of the Rape Culture.

As developed in my script “Asleep in a Dream”, I have posited the idea that we are much too keen to condemn rapists. This will appear shocking only in so far as it is true. The Dialectical thinker in me should like to think that I owe a deep-down buried debt to Stanley Kubrick; his rendition of A Clockwork Orange, whose original novel I never read, presented the most sympathetic and pitiable rapist and (unwitting) murderer that I had ever encountered. It is truly the power of Art to accomplish that.

The rapist is a product of society and society is responsible. This is not a renunciation of individual responsibility. In fact the one philosopher that seems to be most stringent a believer in individual accountability is Sartre. But Sartre as a Marxist kind of “came out the other end” (to put it very dialectically) and seems to make the strongest case, post-humo(ro)usly, against the contemporary feminists. Fitting, since he his self dated a feminist through-out the entirety of his adult professional life. [Score Sartre!] In the Sartrean view rape is all ways the woman’s fault. It is the man’s fault too of course. It is every one’s fault. The dialectical confluence of human wills produce the tragedy. We all get the war that we deserve. It is a moral reading of Shakespeare that prioritises Justice over Mercy. And yet it is in this sense one of the most Mercifal. No one singularly is to blame; no scape-goat receives the Shadows of the other men or the negative Animi of the other women. It is a mark of psychological maturity that one can ac-knowledge this. And the average paranoid, unfriendly college student will be the last to grasp it. So be it. First time for every thing.

How is it then that the rape victim gets what she deserves? Or what he deserves, if we are to be fair and honest? Is it that she should have known better? A certain feminist strain implies this, even if it consciously denies it. Fascistic Feminism tends to expect women to behave in accord with THEIR gender role, THEIR objectification of women. They take this to such an extreme that gender roles and objectification have become memes. WERE they items of concern hither-to? Or are they merely objects of knowledge NOW as a part of the feminist regime? All knowledge is a function of power, a la Foucault, right?

So the feminists set the precedent for violence against women by employing MORAL violence in an attempt to make women conform. They objectify men by compelling men to perceive women a CERTAIN WAY. This imposition upon [male]man as subject renders him no alternative except as Object. Typical Sartrean analysis.

Why is it that I cite no feminine sources here? It is because to exploit them for ethos would be akin to rape. I intuited this in my early note-books. I could produce them as evidence if you would like; they are very tattered. (As though that mattered or flattered.*)

But surely the feminists do not have that much influence; they are merely Reactionary. They want to em-power women by imitating men. They do not command respect; they demand it. Their behavior is all ways going to be patriarchal, and for some one who has worked against patriarchy with pain-staking endurance and Angst for years, having intuited its dangers before-hand, having suffered mental turmoil at the thought of these injustices, and having been met with the injustices one’s self [and there-by to some degree calmed as by a surly cigarette] I am not prone to take any contemporary American Feminist seriously. Neither should she, were she actually secure, care if I do.

*Flat earth theory.

Enough of that.

Let us get to the grand point of it.

Rape Culture is symptomatic of an impersonal culture. This is not an attack upon introversion. Introverts tend to be the most personal and they command the greatest respect. It is our conventional conformist culture in fact, which the extraverts are more demonstrably guilty of (though not by a great margin necessarily, except that they are prone in the Jungian view to be rather ignorant of Personal Motives, and so the introverts must keep their silence in self-preservation) that creates anti-social behavior. TO cite Watts: We have no society. We have a mob.

We all get the war that we deserve because we fuel paranoia. Feminist rhetoric if any thing is the oil that sets the other lumber a-flame. Its angle is entirely that of VICTIMHOOD. No epistemological investigation is made here. It s approach is nothing short of Fascistic. “Rape is never a Woman’s Fault” should SCREAM Orwellian, especially when the campaign that it is a slogan for essentially forbids men and women in the state of California to have sex whilst BUZZED. So I have to ask: If two individuals are inebriated, and they sleep volitionally with one another, who is to blame? Both, as be-fits Accountability? Not if it is legally “rape” and there-by “never the woman’s fault”. Feminists take the position of victim in order to assert sexual domination and legal discrimination against Men, and Men even in the highest repute have to bite their tongues about it, un-less of course Controversy was how they ATTAINED status to begin with.

I do not find that that commands Respect. Not at all.

In my script I show a protagonist that begins to advocate for rape. But to him it is only an abstraction. He is marginalised as a rapist (admittedly with his own consent) due to the mis-communications typical of Romantic love, as they come into conflict with the Fascistic stringencies of the legal system in which he finds his self and the Culture it has created.

He is not patriarchal. He is not a chauvinist. He is not even a misogynist. His misanthropy is a reaction (admittedly an unstable one) to his pre-dicament. It is an a priori ethic based in a dubious accusation, NOT an a priori ethic based in actual violence. Violence was the example set to him by condemnation. Isolation severed him from society. Insecurity fueled his paranoia. What he says is not the author’s advocacy. It is the logical conclusion to a mind that tries to make sense of Absurdity. When the “woman” has become the personification of a hostile society, he has no further reason to be civil(ised).

Feminism does little to arm women (or men![And me!]) against rape. One site even deliberately de-nounced a scientific cure for date rape, but not on the grounds that chemistry is unreliable epistemologically. Rather, their whole ‘advocacy’ was to ‘console victims’ [survivors. What ever. They are being phallogocentric.] by assuring them that this was ‘never their fault’.

Pity is a power attitude, eh? Pity as a power attitude, yea.

Their advocacy is totally fruit-less. They do not intend to prevent crime but to exploit victims for publicity. And per chance to punish perpetrators. They commit the fallacy of the Other. They project their own demons upon him: The stereo-typical rapist. Yet we are never justified in cruelty as a response to cruelty. As de Beauvoir pointed out in her Ethics of Ambiguity we never have access to an other’s Ethical Sanctity. The rapist is justified in his own mind usually, and we only have OUR own minds for reference; all other claims are Bad Faith. This does not mean that we become Relativists, leveling all moral reasoning to Nihilism. It DOES mean that, to cite Watts, we “recognize the relativity of [our] own emotional involvement,” as though we were “a spider and a wasp”. The reason that existentialist ethics work (what Americans all ways want: ‘Solvency’) is that they allow us to prosecute criminals but not to persecute them. As per Nietzsche: We judge their actions not their souls. Simple. To judge their souls is cruel, for we can only project aspects of our own except where personal experience with this individual is concerned. And we are much too unkind to scape-goats; they allow a release for our own “animalistic” sides (to use an un-flattering and archaic meaning of the word “animal”). We are never justified in seeking vengeance; we can only take those actions that WE deem practically and morally necessary to re-habilitate these people and ESPECIALLY to ensure (and insure) that what they did does NOT happen to them in prison, for then our prisons become meaningless. We cannot solve the problem if we support institutions that perpetuate these cycles of abuse and  then release the Abused back in to the wild. And an even greater cruelty would be to never release them at all.

This is not Romantic idealistic or naive. This is not pathos. This is a logical conclusion from the very ethics that Decency and Feminism (too very disparate trends in life) e-spouse.

In the mean-time we must cultivate a more social society in civilian life. Not a more extraverted society; we have had enough of that. But one that is more honest. We get the war that we deserve. That may sound like rape rhetoric but it is practical to putting an end to this. If the feminists are willing to surrender the false sense of power that they derive from the miseries of these (men and) women. And by “these” I mean this with deliberate ambiguity, not drawing a line between victim and perpetrator in what is a Cycle of Abuse. Some one who has been fascinated with this since before he entered in to the college environment and before it was a popular topic is entitled to his opinion from years of re-search. After all: It was not initiated in self-defense or self-interest. One begins to wonder why so many college students are so adamant about “preventing rape on college campuses” that it has become the norm to be un-approachable and dismissive. This is not an attitude of personal entitlement; it terrifies me. No one is born evil, that I know of. We learn evil. We are tempted to it. And the greater the evil that hangs over us the more un-reasonable the temptation. Try an experiment. Try dis-confirmation. Isolate your self from people. Experience solitary confinement. Experience marginalisation. Experience what Marcel called the absence of “Availability”, that crucial linch-pin of his Work. Heidegger addresses it as well, as do many genuine spiritual teachers. As does Marie-Louise von Franz in her elaborations upon Eros. As does Martin Buber in the notion of the I-Thou relationship. As does Deleuze, speaking from the negative angle, in explaining capitalistic schizophrenia and paranoia. As does any one who has had the heart and courage to open up to strangers and to be Receptive.

We get the war that we deserve. Feminists perpetuate Rape Culture by creating the very environment of paranoia and violence that justifies it. There is no way out of this; one should have to take Camus’ Leap to deny that the LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF THE AMERICAN FEMINIST NARRATIVE IS RAPE. It is not the “logic of a rapist”, and if they deny this they merely stifle the Unconscious, which as Woodman warns, as von Franz warns, and as Jung warns, will all ways have its say. The Shadow of society – the scape-goat – is of course ALL SO a product of this. We are responsible for the kind of society we live in; the Jungians and the existentialists (at least Sartrean ones) agree here. And yet the American Feminists insist on victimhood. Their entire effort to eliminate “rape rhetoric” is an effort to dis-possess their selves of the kind of Accountability and Responsibility that would be their greatest weapon if only they picked it up. But that would all so be the two sided sword that they would impale their selves upon, for once a problem has been transcended the war has ended. There is no longer a reason for feminism; at least it is not as great. No more jobs for people running Feminist Literary journals. No more lucrative law-suits. You can see why I distrust most social justice movements in the United States, the capitalist empire. Their idea of “justice” will make more evolved thinkers cringe and face-palm.

Did she deserve it? This question will be drawn from the muck of Shadow and Animus projection, where it is identified with “rape rhetoric” (a Fascistic distinction because it denies, as has been demonstrated, Logical Continuity simply in fear of what the inevitable conclusions are, and that it stifles intellectual discussion as though intellectuality were a “male” and not “masculine” trait), dust it off, and placed upon the shelves of Genuine Inquiry into the Metaphysical nature of Victimhood. But the passions must be assuaged. We can do this be recognising that the violent urges that one feels, which threaten Reason in these respects, are no different from the violence that is opposed; by battling monsters we become them at times. Feminism did not react to Rape Culture; it created it, even if it did not invent rape. And the labels we assign to things which are ambiguous (and sexuality is deeply ambiguous and difficult, however the average college student might try to escape this fact) are not to be confused with the things them selves if we want to engender genuine communication. The pun there was intended. To engender communication here means to refine and re-define communication BETWIXT the genders. Yet this cannot be forced, only done by example. One last point: If you do not like the logical conclusion of your own arguments, and if denying logic in favour of Fascism and reactionary violence will not do: CHANGE THY PREMISES.

Dm.A.A.

The Impossibility of Repetition.

The function of memory seems to be pre-
dominantly imprecise. It is much as William James had posited, citing Hera-
clitus: One can not step in to the same stream twice.

At any moment that a new thought is produced, there is an implicit sense of Assuredness that this thought is authentic and per chance un-precedented. Yet when Volitional Consciousness begins to interfere and meddle with the contents that affective Certainty becomes muddled. In truth, 'Certainty' is im-
possible. And yet at the moment that this becomes apparent Certainty all so becomes imperative, because Assuredness disappears. One can never 'think the same thing twice', per se, because even were one to stumble upon the same set of words twice the sense of Assuredness that had coloured the back-
ground of the initial Thought will have disappeared for ever; with the Attention directed back rather than forth, one can never be Assured that one hasteuly made a success full repetition. Only the illusion of such a success is possible, and that is triggered by any redundancy what so ever. To the degree that the new thought-forms are redundant In Reference to Their Selves,(and of course, eventually, Each Other,) the illusion of Repetition will be tempting, but scandalous to the attentive phenomenologist who spots this ruse that his mind is playing up on him.

dm.A.A.

... And you think: Oh, no. This is too soon. I have not even tested our Chemistry yet.
I have to do a Chemistry experiment!

... And you think: Oh, no. This is too soon. I have not even done a chemistry experiment yet.

How can I know if we even HAVE Chemistry?

Here 'I' creates a seductive repetition. Two 'I's' appear in each of the two permutations.
Like two lovers' eyes. The illusion that THIS was the initial set of seductive phrases appears to be never completion. But it is aesthetically atrocious, placing excessive strain, blame, and responsibility upon the Subject.
This uniformity, one-
sided because it excludes the 'we' and the 'is', comes close to suggesting a successful repetition, but only because its own internal uniformity mimmicks what such control on the part of Consciousness Would Look Like.

... And you think: Oh, no. This is too soon. I have not even tested our Chemistry yet. There was no Chemistry experiment!

Better. Perhaps:

Oh, no. This is too soon. I have not even tested our Chemistry yet.
We have to do a Chemistry experiment!

Difference is the Soul of Love.

DM.A.A.

Adding to complications in Certainty is the fact that at every point the intellectual ascetic must omit the 'wrong phrase', definitionally, that he might hope to make a success full repetition. Yet this is impossible. The very focus of attention upon the task of repetition brings all so to light all the other permutations.
In speech, one has to choose From these per-
mutations in order that one can speak the proper one. To deny this choice is to Bad Faith. Yet to acknowledge this choice is to think All of the Permutations At Once, as options,
rendering what are physical possibilities as mental Actualities. In this sense, Every Thought is a Repetition (of the Same Possibilities), so to speak of a 'successful repetition' is again futile, for there can be no success with out the possibility of failure. It is purely affective, not logical; a la Kierkegaard, it is a passion that burns to its own destruction.

DM.A.A.

The True Origin of the Rape Culture.

I think that I have figured out the source of the rape culture:

People like you. People who preach feminism and who crusade against it.

For what is rape that sets it apart from passion?

It is violence.

And yet how better are you truly?

When you condemn the innocent for what they have not done, preaching guilt for not sharing in a common hate?

Have you not fallen for violence?

Does it not seem justified?

Surely, one thinks, there is a double-standard at work here.

The man seems to be condemned. The woman seems to be the victim.

But wait. If he is condemned, is HE not the victim?

What of the woman portraying him? Condemning him in the very act of self-victimisation?

What does she hope to accomplish?

She uses her moral superiority to be cruel.

And at the same time that her character is the innocent victim she her self is the oppressor.

And if I feel a guilt that belongs only to the male character, then am *I* not the victim?

Would I not seek refuge only with the other rapists, presuming them to be innocent?

Would I in my desperation not have hope in that you are wrong?

Would I in my own oppression, that of being charged with the same guilt by simply being a man, not find it permissible? What civility have *I* been shown that the thought of violence should shock me or traumatize me?

Your preaching has been traumatizing enough. That was the point to begin with.

And yet your message is muddled.

It does not ring true.

I do not feel a sense of integrity in knowing my relationship to evil.

I was a pure soul.

A gentle soul.

A genuine soul.

And now by virtue of some others’ accusations I am corrupted.

Not beyond repair.

But beyond recognition. Beyond memory.

Not beyond despair.

And in your anger you become reactionary.

In your reactionary ways you become Fascistic.

And you empower the very devil you oppose.

When my passion is equated with that sort of violence.

Or your indignation justifies a compromise of my personal freedom.

My freedom to make love whilst drunk.

Or to be seduced without a word.

Fuck you.

You are to blame.

Dm.A.A. 

I am not a feminist.

I am not a feminist. In fact, most ideology I take unkindly towards. Ideology only impresses me routinely as a power structure. Born of that primitive urge. It is no wonder that Gilles Deleuze hated social justice movements. Their rhetoric is oppressive. Every word and every phrase find its dignity in a specific context. Yet they are keen to stab at rhetoric that opposes them like Fascists, having devised a system by which to set apart every infraction as a symptom.

Their aims are unattainable. As my friend Julian said of C.S. Lewis: He creates problems out of nowhere, unnecessarily, and then solves them and claims that the solution “proves” some thing. Their claims justify the very violence that they use, cyclically, to defend those claims, which left alone, without moral prejudice , projection, or a naiive absence of skepticism, would be without meaning to the genuinely innocent mind. They echo the prejudices of a patriarchal society that condemned the innocence of Nature, and therefore Human Nature, to the fallen realm, and that taught one to cherish hatred and suppression of this innocence rather than love and expression. They might as well be suspected of having invented the patriarchy in order that they may govern over it. The claims are that they brought it to attention. Have these progressives that both follow and lead this movement forgotten what their godfather Foucault said: That all knowledge requires Power, and that all power presupposes knowledge? Or was it: All knowledge PRESUPPOSES power, and all power requires knowledge?

Rilke said that the hardest thing is for two human beings to love one another. Campbell said that most people dwell on the third chakra of the Kundalini and rarely rise to the Heart, the Seat of the Divine Love, that segregates them from animals. Jung points out that where the Will to Power is strongest there Love is lacking and that where Love is the Will to Power wanes. Kohlberg points out that most people analogously remain upon the third level of moral development, the first stage of conventional reasoning, throughout their lives. A few rise to the latter stage of conventional reasoning, that of authority and faith in social structures (as opposed to social roles* as per the third stage), and even fewer therefore attain post-conventional moral reasoning, such as Individual Relativism and Universal Thinking. And then some drift in a kind of naiive skepticism from system to system, mocking one set of findings by juxtaposition with another, but rarely committing to one faithfully, as is the case in Love, or seeking to reconcile the opposing theses or to respect Individual Solitude and Sovereignty of opinion. In stead they wage war by force and moral violence, violating every glade and nook of innocence by claiming the aim of Disillusion and “the brutal Truth” as their justification. Before these same dominators referred to it as Manifest Destiny. Regard the Native American. HIS Nature too was misunderstood, his past romanticized as violent by those hoping to appear sentimental whilst actually asserting a political agenda. Was he violent prior to colonization? Or was his being driven out violent? Was he driven towards violence? Who struck first? Was any one justified in striking back? The calmness with which a mind can regard these musings is evidence of the amount of peace to which that mind has attained. The anger with which one is enflamed in retaliation and indignation at Reason is evidence of the degree towards which violence has taken root in the soul from too much exposure. Of course to describe violence one must be involved in it then. To gaze into the Void is to allow it to gaze into one’s self. Is it not possible therefore that Innocence, in both its meanings, both that of ignorance of the “Truth” and that of guiltlessness, is indivisible, and that these two definitions of it are inseparable?

Dm.A.A.

*Of course, it is understandable therefore that feminists should be so fixated upon the prevalence of “gender roles”. The “social role”, a phenomenon of the mind that took me personally a great deal of strain, emotionally, to fathom and intellectually to conceptualise, is nothing more than a projection based on personal conditionings and vague words that could easily pass for Universal to a feeble mind. Yet a conventional person will all ways feel insecure about what role he or she is projecting upon society and therefore she will do her damnedest to change those roles, having reified them upon the “out there” and forgotten to take stock of them “in here”. This is what Jung calls Participation Mystique.

Rage: Black Lives Don't Matter.

Rage: I find it ironic when people use such Orwellian phrases as "Black Lives Matter". As though "black" were a material quality. What are YOU projecting? I am going back to reading. Why not just say "Black Lives don't Matter"? Then you would say: "Blackness is not a material quality." Is that too "smug and condescending" for you? To take the higher plane of consciousness. May be I do not fear your rage so much as my own. Y'all are supposed to be literate and not Fascists that throw about mindless slogans whose meaning depends entirely upon a Mass, fragmented context, in an infinitely self-referential post-modern language game that has the intellectual merit of Farmville that does not even bother to de-construct its self. If you are going to reify people and then reify your own logocentric prejudices leave me out of it; you are feeding the fire. Dmitry. P.S. Sorry if this is too precise to be superimposed over an unnerving photograph and to be parroted as a slogan. I suppose that no one as usual cares about what the Jewish book-worm has to say; dismissing him as "white" is enough reason to stop reading part way through. I forgive you. You expose your selves to more hostile Fascist rhetoric than alcohol. Cheers. I am going back to my books. There is an internal war to be fought and whatever the Mass tells me isn't going to make me any more sane. What do people care what the lunatic says? If we all could describe a single moment with the phenomenological accuracy that is due to a report there would not be a single staff-nurse at a Mental Hospital. But no. Oppress away. Stir up meaningless issues that can have no proof. Label people. Go insane your selves. Ride the wave of progressive thinkers that were cleverer than you. What do I care? I should be used to being persecuted for my state of consciousness by now. And so long as people make more money off of racism than actual oppression, so long as the very people that denounce "structural violence" are themselves unblushing structuralists, and so long as they project not only their own logocentric prejudices but their own logocentrism upon people, I probably should not bother. Slogans galore it is. I can weave them together as well as the next fuck. Too deep for you? Check your privelege.

Dm.A.A.

Why Vaccinations should Never be Forced. Part One.

I noticed some of your posts regarding ticks carrying a new virus. I am skeptical. You probably do not want to hear this. But my recent greatest burden has been some thing a friend of mine brought to my attention. His name is Nic DeMarco and he has a cyst in his brain which is fairly out-wardly noticeable. It was ostensibly the result of a vaccination that went awry.

There will soon be a law in effect unless we manage to stop it that not only forces people to take mandatory vaccinations against all these "viruses" but that all so allows companies to tell the scientific method to screw off basically in passing vaccinations if they want to. This was what Big Pharmaceutical companies did with experimental drugs such as Risperdal and Depakote. I should know: I was put on them during a time in my life that I was following a cult and hanging out with some one who had major P.T.S.D. they triggered psychotic symptoms.

The way that pharmacists justify this is by saying "We do not know how these drugs work. But they do." Usually these are not the people taking them. Vaccinations are equally experimental. And this bill (Nic knows the exact legal jargon for it) basically lets them get away with any thing.

as was wisely put by Peter Joseph if you see it on the main stream media it is either unimportant or aimed at furthering an agenda. Not to be "tin-foil-hate" but I come from a country called the Soviet Union where people learned to be skeptical of the information they were being fed. What is even scarier than propaganda is realising that it is not true...

Mainstream media out-lets, who basically form a conglomerate with governments by virtue of such legislation as the T.P.P. (look it up! or don't. Either way though:) make all naysayers look like fools. This is why the stereotypical denouncer of forced immunity is believed to think that vaccines create autism...

well. This is a formal fallacy. Actually there are several fallacies in this...

1. The Strawperson Fallacy. We do not believe that. Autism is pretty much intense introversion. There is no "autism spectrum"; we are ALL on the autism spectrum! If you will pardon the paradox; why call it autism if we all have it? Some people are just more introverted than others...

2. The Fallacy of Begging the Question. It's like saying: You do not believe in vaccinations, so you MUST believe this ridiculous myth that vaccines cause mental disorders.

In fact, I believe in neither mental disorders (the D.S.M.) for vaccinations. Both are in the hands of Big Pharma.

*nor vaccinations

3. Where do you think that "ridiculous rumours" come from? Even despite the prevalence of Illuminati videos the people who believe in them are a ridiculed minority. I have many views that barely get any hits on youtube, whereas meghan Trainor is every where. So who is really in charge of widely held beliefs in the Mass? The media! And by circulating these rumours and then shutting them down they create a propaganda hoax.

As the post-structural philosophers said: All language only refers to other language. All media only refers to other media.

Again: Sorry if this was not what you wanted to read at the moment. I was curious about what you were posting on-line. You seem like an interestin and intelligent educated person. Whether you agree or not, sincerely, Dmitry.

Dm.A.A.