Prediktability.

People who accuse us of being Unpredictable:

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

Oh and that INCLUDES this argument as well.

Dm.A.A.

Obscure?

Response to people who accuse us of preaching Obscurantism:

Okay. This is going to be a Performance K.

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

2. How many of you believe in Science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dm.A.A.

Twenty-three You Say?

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

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

Dm.

No True Slave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dm.

Privilege.

Privilege.

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

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

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

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

Dm.A.A.

Taoism in Translation.

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

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

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

Dm.A.A.

Reasons (and Intuitions) to prefer the Intuition to the Reason (whilst employing both.)

Reasons (and Intuitions) to prefer the Intuition to the Reason (whilst employing both.)

1.       REASON DEPENDS UPON FORCE. Logic can go on indefinitely in an infinite regression; even the ancient Greeks knew this. The moment that an elaboration becomes a “warrant” is decided by the person in power in a given situation. In 1984, truth is determined even on a mathematical level by the Totalitarian State. Winston Smith breaks with this by finding his OWN reasoning, but as will be established this is fruitless because it only function to CONVINCE OTHERS (3) and it is really secondary to Intuition; intuition comes first, and so it is really the necessary of the two. (6).

2.       INTUITION INCLUDES MORE INFORMATION. Jung posited and pretty much proved (though all science is falsifiable) that the Intuition is one’s key to a Vast Store of Unconscious Knowledge, whereas Reason prejudices egoic consciousness and habit. Even the parenthetical statement within this very paragraph was not dredged up by the force of Reason and Will (1), but it swam to the top Intuitively as the most convincing possible argument available to the writer. Wisdom depends not only upon knowledge and “clarity of thought” (as though the mind were not all ways, in its Nature, as per Wittgenstein, Logical [though if logic alone is not sufficient, as we are demonstrating, this would explain “illogical” behaviour according to a cause other than an “absence of logic”.]), but upon the intuitive* capacity to know how to APPLY that information (so that it BECOMES Knowledge rather than “sheer fact”), and perhaps most importantly knowing when to use what argument, as well as when to be silent, as not only Wittgenstein but countless yogis have attested.

For these reasons Jung scholar and mythologist Joseph Campbell called the Unconscious the Wisdom Body.

3.       REASON IS ONLY USED TO CONVEY TRUTH TO *other* PEOPLE.

4.       INTUITION IS MORE FEMININE. Intuitively, one can explain the reason that men tend to be cited more than women do as intellectual authorities. It is not the result of a prejudice. In fact, citing mainly women or even as many women as one cites men could be symptomatic of a feminist or equalist prejudice on the part of consciousness. There is no absolute reason to believe men and women to be indeterminate from one an other. Men seem very observably, for those who possess the feminine quality of Intuition, to be more showy and active, whereas women even who disavow gender tend to be more quiet and passive. But it is only symptomatic of a systematic contempt for the feminine virtues and a LACK of this feminine attentiveness that leads feminists and equalists to presume the exception to be the rule, so hating the feminine that they disown it and pretend towards a masculine-centred view of “equality” that De Beauvoir criticised and that was SO influenced by nineteenth-century Rationalism (explaining thus their systematic contempt for the nineteenth century; if we were ALLOWED by feminists to study it through its own lens it would destroy the feminist narrative) that it would have made Plath cringe.

Intuition tells you this; Reason only seeks to differ attention to arguments about “social forces” that, as stated above, are demonstrations of Force (1), for people in power are at liberty to disconfirm intuitions as all-too-personal, have a narrower context (2) for what “makes sense” and is allowed to be an argument, (a patriarchal position, as M. Woodman** defines it.), and can walk off if they are not convinced but flatter their selves as superior to the uninformed if they have succeeded in appealing to the prejudices of, or duping, others (3). And all of these are extraverted-biased. Social forces are only a determining factor for social people ([as] Jung [posited]), and those INCLUDE (as above)

1.       Force (in a Group or Power Structure),

2.       Ego (in a low-context culture), and

3.       Other people in the sense of public opinion (rather than solidarity, as will be explained in 8.).

5.       INTUITION IS MORE FREE-FLOWING. [William] James calls this the “stream of consciousness” that creative writers tap into. Jung calls it “non-directed thought”, a form more primordial than Directed Thought, or verbal language. Derrida actually corroborates Jung by claiming we prefer in a masculine-centred way the spoken word to the written word, which life-long readers know to be, in the latter case, much more enticing phenomenologically*** to the Imagination.

6.       INTUITION IS MORE IMMEDIATE. We know things Intuitively long before we can convey them to other people.

7.       INTUITION IS MORE SELF-EMPOWERING. Because now I know things instantly (5,6) and I do not need to force people to agree with me for them to be true (1, 3). Plus I know more (2) and am more well-integrated and less of a dick (4).

8.       INTUITION CREATES GENUINE SOLIDARITY IN A GROUP. Whilst a Herd of people can be miss-led by Reason, a Society of people, or a social group that respects the individuals that are parts of it, can facilitate discussion wherein conclusions arrived at by a number of people independently can be seen to have been held in common all along. Kohlberg would distinguish this in his Ethical Theory as the distinction betwixt Conventional, Level Three reasoning (Conformism to “social norm” and “social cue”) in the former case and Post-Conventional, Level Six reasoning (Moral Universals that follow Relativism and Individualism) in the latter case.

9.       INTUITION IS MORE EMPATHIC. The foot-note evidences the writer’s empathic capacity (and confidence) to imagine Rationalist arguments without necessarily feeling as though one were committing the same fallacies as the Rationalists do.

10.   INTUITION WORKS. For all the reasons above. Reason divides people from one an other in endless political discussion and arm chair philosophy occurring on the spectrum of privileged to neurotic. Intuition guides us WHETHER WE KNOW IT OR NOT. Intuition is the stream; Reason is but a craft used to carry people from one side to the other, and per chance from one end to the other. But one can swim without a craft, even if the River is Wide and Deep. The craft helps us just not top drown (in psychosis, for instance, when Intuition is given such free reign as in Romanticism that there is no discernment left on the part of consciousness to discern bad vibes from good vibes, and not ENOUGH ego to want to SHARE one’s Intuitions WITH the group, knowing them to be true regardless of whether or not the Grail is accepted, as in the Arthurian Legends and of course every myth known to man, but ESPECIALLY that of the Buddhist Bodhisattva. Oh and the Christ as well apparently.)

*This reasoning is not circular (1. Intuition matters because 2. Wisdom depends upon it because 3. Intuition matters) but rather indicative (Look: I know that intuition exists. I do not need to PROVE it to you. (3) But I am using Reason to OFFER you a chance to LOOK at it and observe it in theory. This is using empiricism against rationalism in a way that transcends both.)

**The abbreviation is of course out of Respect for the argument being made in this paragraph.

***Yes: Even [MicroSoft] Word did not recognise this word. It is real though.

Dm.A.A.