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

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

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

Dm.A.A.

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

Strategies for Preserving Time:

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

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

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

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

Dm.A.A.

Kritik of the term RACISM:

Kritik of the term RACISM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This machine stops Fascists.

Dm.A.A.

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

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

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

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

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

Dm.A.A.

Argument Against Censorship.

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

Argument: But every thing is political!

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

Dm.A.A.

The Drop Out.

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

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

Dm.A.A.

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

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